November 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] GNSO review - principles for discussion
by Bruce Tonkin 12 Nov '06

12 Nov '06

Hello Philip, >From a Council point of view, I think we should operate as per our current Council procedures regardless of the topic. Currently any member of Council may propose a motion and if it is seconded - it may be discussed, provided it is within the mission of ICANN and on the topic of gTLDs. As chair I follow the bylaws, the old namescouncil rules of procedure (which have never been updated since the GNSO was formed), and finally generally accepted meeting rules for proposing motions etc. I certainly support the advice that Council members first discuss a topic via this mailing list before proposing a motion be placed on an agenda for the Council meeting. However there is nothing stopping the GNSO forming its own "working group" to look at refining the GNSO in response to the two reviews, and the rules for this working group could be different (e.g one vote per member etc). Regards, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard > Sent: Friday, 10 November 2006 8:42 PM > To: 'Council GNSO' > Subject: [council] GNSO review - principles for discussion > > Dear Council members, > > I feel we should set ourselves some principles upon which we > wish to further discussion on matters connected with the two > reviews of the GNSO Council and the GNSO. > Allow me to propose some. > > DISCUSSION BEFORE RESOLUTION > > Council should have discussion on selected topics first. > Then there should be time to air that discussion with > Constituencies and other parties. > Then Council should discuss the outcome of that wider discussion. > Then Council may consider a resolution. > > VOTING > > When Council takes any vote, be it indicative or not, the > voting basis will be one person, one vote. > (There can be no justification for having the policy-related > double voting for certain constituencies for matters such as > GNSO review. To do so would be especially ironic considering > the review proposes the removal of such double votes.) > > QUORUM > > A proposal for priority discussion should be proposed and > seconded and then supported by a majority of constituencies > before it is added to a Council agenda. > (This should help us to discuss the important things first). > > Are we all in agreement with the above ? Are there other > principles to help us in our work? > > Philip > > > > > > > >

1 0

GNSO review - principles for discussion
by Philip Sheppard 12 Nov '06

12 Nov '06

Dear Council members, I feel we should set ourselves some principles upon which we wish to further discussion on matters connected with the two reviews of the GNSO Council and the GNSO. Allow me to propose some. DISCUSSION BEFORE RESOLUTION Council should have discussion on selected topics first. Then there should be time to air that discussion with Constituencies and other parties. Then Council should discuss the outcome of that wider discussion. Then Council may consider a resolution. VOTING When Council takes any vote, be it indicative or not, the voting basis will be one person, one vote. (There can be no justification for having the policy-related double voting for certain constituencies for matters such as GNSO review. To do so would be especially ironic considering the review proposes the removal of such double votes.) QUORUM A proposal for priority discussion should be proposed and seconded and then supported by a majority of constituencies before it is added to a Council agenda. (This should help us to discuss the important things first). Are we all in agreement with the above ? Are there other principles to help us in our work? Philip

5 4

FW: suggestion for the upcoming Council meeting/re Staff guests
by Marilyn Cade 12 Nov '06

12 Nov '06

Dear Council Chair Thanks very much for the Council Agenda. I see two areas where it is going to be important to have ICANN senior staff/additional resources available to the Council for the upcoming call, and ask that you extend invitations to them to join the Council call, if this is not already the case. First, in reviewing the Minutes from our last Council call, there was a request for assistance/additional work to the Assistant General Counsel that were initially accepted, with several updates along the way by staff that the materials were under development, delayed, but forthcoming, etc., and then finally, it was announced to Council after the Council call, by email that the requested support materials were not to be supplied. Regrettably, on the Council call, there was no indication by staff of this decision, so that Council might have modified its work request in an informed manner. I am not commenting on the decision not to provide the requested document, but the communication and collegiality needed to problem solve with Council on what can be provided. I know that we are ever evolving and improving our working interactions. Thus, as I view the Council and the staff as partners in support of policy development, I would suggest that improvements in timeliness and responsiveness in keeping Council up to date that a requested work item will not be provided could become a common and shared objective for our future work together. Having made that statement, nevertheless, given that we are discussing the PDPs, and the progression of work in particular on PDP Feb 06, I would appreciate having the Assistant General Counsel join the call to be available to support the discussion. Secondly, as we are discussing the GNSO Review as an agenda item, let me thank you for putting the topic of progressing the broader GNSO involvement in the GNSO review on the agenda. This deserves some thoughtful discussion and probably a further discussion on Sunday, in Sao Paolo, of the Council. It will be helpful to hear an update from Denise Michel, to launch this discussion on our next Council call. While I see some enthusiasm from some constituency reps to start voting on piecemeal parts of the LSE review, I recall form the conf. call briefings, and from the Board that the LSE Review is one input, and that broader inputs from the community and from the Constituencies are needed to have informed consideration about evolution and improvements in the GNSO. Thus, I am not in favor of voting on piecemeal items. I am aware of the long standing work items from the Council review that need to be taken into account, along with the LSE independent review. I'd like us to have a rationalized document that brings the results of both 'reviews' into alignment. Perhaps Denise can task her team to provide such a resource, ahead of the Council call, as a resource document. I take note of the comments from some that there are members of the Council or Constituencies who are afraid that others are afraid of change, or will resist change for personal reasons. I assume we could all have that suspicion of each other, of others in other SOs, or even of Board members or Staff. However, I want to have a different vision: I have faith that everyone who works at ICANN cares deeply about its success, however they define success from their own view of the 'elephant', taking note of the parable of the blind men and the elephant encounter. I note long hours of volunteering, hard work to examine issues, and even personal funding of travel to ICANN meetings by so many in the community of stakeholders, both within the Constituencies and beyond, in the At Large, Board, and in other SOs. I am looking forward to hearing from Denise what the progress is on development of ideas on a balanced process can be developed to take into account input from the presently involved, from some expertise not yet engaged, from Board members, and even from the GAC and other SOs, that can inform improvements and changes within this SO as is appropriate to support its role in ICANN and the continuing changes and challenges of ICANN's success. It may be that there is a useful cross SO process of inputs and idea generation as well. So, as one Councilor, I'd like to hear from Denise what proposed approaches might be, and discuss rationally and professionally, from the perspective of councilors, some ideas. I take note that the constituencies also often have elected officers, and that it would be inappropriate to supersede discussions within constituencies that can involve their members and officers. Thus, I suspect that this is not the sole discussion that is needed, and would welcome hearing how or what ideas exist to have engagement across the SO as a whole. Finally, can we move this topic up on the agenda, since it is of considerable interest and importance. Best regards, Marilyn Cade, BC Councilor

1 0

Fwd: Re: Fwd: application to the NCUC
by Mawaki Chango 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

This might be of interest; FYI in case you've missed it. --- Chun Eung Hwi <chun(a)PEACENET.OR.KR> wrote: > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:20:47 +0900 > From: Chun Eung Hwi <chun(a)PEACENET.OR.KR> > Subject: Re: Fwd: application to the NCUC > To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > <snip> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)club-internet.fr> > Date: Nov 6, 2006 10:18 AM > Subject: [ga] IDN and IANA > To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: vint(a)google.com > > > The IGF Athens meeting was quite interesting. I was surprised by > the > pressure that ICANN put on IDNs. I did not see any new technical > solution (Falstrom explained that the IETF was active on the issue, > > but it looks they really need help more than anything else). Is it > : > > - because Verisign starts sending me (and probably many others) > CNNIC > Chinese.Chinese Name propositions? > - or because Bob Khan excited people in documenting the way his > Handles could be a more open solution? > - or because Google could represent a new opportunity? > - or because there are new possibilities in Windows Vista (may be > they listen to what we explain t hem for years?) > - or because IE7 makes now credible the ML alias/keyword > propositions? > > IDNs are necessarily the future of the DNS. I am surprised the GNSO > > has no IDN committee (I heard one could be formed?). The issues we > face are not that much technical but strategic (there are two > technical problems - the number of TLDs and the phishing, now IE7 > supports punycode). > > The ITU General Secretary said that on his opinion the Internet of > the future would be more national and local than it is today. This > is > also my opinion. I discussed with the candidate to the ITU General > Secretariat who was in Athens: we were not in full agreement but he > > would obviously want things to move ahead and open the ITU debate > in > an IETF like manner. However, a Multilingual/Multinational Internet > > is not what the IETF has technically in mind while it is not (yet?) > > what the ITU can politically target [they are (today) purely Gov > oriented]. > > This is why it is, now and not in a few months, a good opportunity > to > stabilise ICANN for the years to come (in relation with their > DNSSEC > entity?) as an IDN organiser - before the MINC does it. Since the > IETF will not deliver anything grandiose, ICANN should show what it > > can do quick, before there is a grassroots move - or to objectively > > ally with it? IMHO the ccNSO is not in a position to do anything > exciting, but the GNSO could - considering the governance related > issues? > > I also reminded the idea that IDN revenues should in priority serve > > the language empowerment work - as .org benefits to ISOC - but in > better proportion. There is a better coordination with ISO 3166 MA > also to consider. etc. > > Any suggestion/comment? > jfc > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Chun Eung Hwi > General Secretary, PeaceNet | fax: (+82) 2-2649-2624 > Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 19-259-2667 > Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: chun(a)peacenet.or.kr > ------------------------------------------------------------ >

1 0

Proposed Resolution for Consideration
by Ross Rader 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

Per Bruce's earlier request, here is a proposed resolution for discussion at the next council meeting. This may not be the right resolution, but given the interest in this topic on this list, I believe there is support for a discussion. As a result, I didn't attempt to "wordsmith" and "whereas" this too much, but the salient points of this motion are that; a) there should be term limits for councillors b) the term shall be limited to two consecutive terms c) special circumstances do exist where term limits are not appropriate and these circumstances should be accomodated by our processes d) the Council should act immediately implement this recommendation at the Constituency and board level. I would also note that the the Registrar constituency already abides by these practices and that I am nearing a term limit myself, so I don't believe that I have any special conflicts coming into play by backing a motion of this sort. //begin// Proposed Resolution: The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. //end// Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.

10 16

RE: [council] Updated Again: Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 16 November 2006 - NOTE NEW TIME - UTC 1900
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

Hello Cary, > > Which of the two listed UTCs is it? > Sorry. It should be Thursday 16 November 2006, UTC 19:00 Regards, Bruce

1 0

Terms of ICANN Board Directors
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

Hello Marilyn, > However I am not clear what the Board term limits are. I'll > look that up as a point of information The Board term limits are set out in ( http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI) : Article VI, Section 8 (5): "5. Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these Bylaws, no Director may serve more than three consecutive terms. For these purposes, a person selected to fill a vacancy in a term shall not be deemed to have served that term." A Director is normally appointed for a 3 year term, so this would mean a total of 9 years is possible. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Updated Again: Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 16 November 2006 - NOTE NEW TIME
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

Hello All, As requested I have added the topic of term limits to the Agenda. See below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin *** NOTE Change in time following daylight savings on/off in Southern/Northern Hemisphere *** Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 16 November 2006 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 (11:00 LA, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 Brussels, 6:00 Melbourne next day 17 November) Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Approval of Minutes - 19 October 2006 Item 3: Proposed bylaws amendment to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals Item 4: Update on new gTLDs work Item 5: Update on PDP-Feb06 with respect to existing gTLDs Item 6: Regarding term limits Proposed Resolution from Ross Rader: The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. Item 7: Update on Next steps for improving the GNSO structure and processes Item 8: Update on planning for Sao Paulo Item 9: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Regarding term limits
by Bruce Tonkin 09 Nov '06

09 Nov '06

Hello All, Rather than an unstructured discussion on term limits, perhaps a member of Council would like to propose a motion on this topic, and then I can place this on the agenda for discussion. I may need to get some advice from the General Council's office on how it interacts with the authority of the GNSO Council. E.g does the GNSO Council have authority over the procedure of the GNSO constituencies? As far as I can tell the GNSO Council has authority from ICANN bylaws, Article X, section 2 (ii) to: " GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO" And from Article X, section 3 (4): "The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, provided that such procedures are approved by the Board, and further provided that, until any modifications are recommended by the GNSO Council and approved by the Board, the applicable procedures shall be as set forth in Section 6 of this Article. In addition, the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists or otherwise, for the participation of all who are willing to contribute to the work of the GNSO; such forums shall be appropriately moderated to ensure maximum focus on the business of the GNSO and to minimize non-substantive and abusive postings." With respect to terms of Council members this is covered by Article X, section 3 (2): "2. Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these Bylaws: (a) the regular term of each GNSO Council member shall begin at the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting and shall end at the conclusion of the second ICANN annual meeting thereafter; (b) the regular term of one representative selected by each Constituency shall begin in an even-numbered year and the regular term of the other representative selected by the Constituency shall begin in an odd-numbered year; and (c) the regular term of one of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in even-numbered years and the regular term of the other two of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in odd-numbered years. Each GNSO Council member shall hold office during his or her regular term and until a successor has been selected and qualified or until that member resigns or is removed in accordance with these Bylaws." With respect to the Constituencies, the ARTICLE XX: TRANSITION ARTICLE, states in section 5 (3): "Notwithstanding the adoption or effectiveness of the New Bylaws, each GNSO constituency described in paragraph 2 of this Section 5 shall continue operating as before and no constituency official, task force, or other activity shall be changed until further action of the constituency, provided that each GNSO constituency shall submit to the ICANN Secretary a new charter and statement of operating procedures, adopted according to the constituency's processes and consistent with the New Bylaws, no later than 15 July 2003. It would appear from the above that the constituencies are charged with developing their own charter and statement of operating procedures. Some constituencies do have term limits. So I guess the GNSO Council can either recommend to the Board that the Board change the ICANN bylaws, or the GNSO Council could recommend to each Constituency that they introduce term limits. I expect that the Board would not want to make such a change in isolation, but would consider it as part of the process for refining the GNSO as a whole taking into account the recent GNSO review. The Council could make a recommendations to the constituencies, but they may also decide to wait and see how the overall refinement of the GNSO goes before changing such a procedure. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

6 5

Regarding term limits - GNSO review
by Philip Sheppard 09 Nov '06

09 Nov '06

There is a difference between steps that may be taken independently and steps that are wise to do so. Much is interconnected. The bigger picture items need to be considered first. The old metaphor about "Arranging deckchairs on the Titanic" springs to mind. There is nothing today to stop the constituencies imposing term limits (some do) if they deem that beneficial. Given this flexibility what is the pressing need to repeat this at Council level also? Philip PS as an old hand on Council I am personally overflowing with reforming zeal to change much in ICANN. I've seen it from the inside and recognise the rot within. Why give the neophytes the scalpel ?

1 0