December 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

[Fwd: Send comments during the GNSO Forum]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 3, 2006

Dec. 3, 2006

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org Please send questions and comments during the GNSO Public forum in Sao Paulo, currently running to: gnso-forum-comments(a)icann.org -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Terms of reference used for the GNSO review
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 3, 2006

Dec. 3, 2006

Hello All, Below are the terms of reference for the GNSO review derived from: http://www.icann.org/gnso/review-reference-terms-27oct05.htm GNSO Review Terms of Reference 4.1. There are two key elements to the GNSO Review. The first is a review of the GNSO as a whole to determine whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure. The second is a review of each of the Constituencies which constitute the GNSO to determine whether those Constituencies represent the interests of global stakeholders in an open and transparent manner. 4.2. The focus areas, outlined below, seek to examine and quantify the extent to which the GNSO as a whole and the Constituencies, as individual entities, reflect global stakeholder interests; whether the operation of each Constituency is open and transparent and whether the procedures used within the Constituencies to develop bottom up policy are designed to achieve fairness. 4.3. The focus areas can be grouped as follows. The questions outlined here are not, in any way, designed to limit the analysis of substantive issues which arise throughout the course of the Review. 4.3.1 Representativeness: Analysis in this part of the Review could include the questions outlined below: whether the Constituencies, on a global basis, represent the stakeholders they claim to represent and whether sufficiently diverse groups are consulted to develop consensus-based policy whether the Constituencies operate in an open and transparent manner; whether Constituencies are open to individuals or corporations who wish to participate; whether the membership procedures are open and transparent and whether the current Constituencies best reflect global representation of a diversity of stakeholder positions whether additional Constituencies would capture new contributions and input from other stakeholders in the policy development process whether there are any barriers to the participation of all who are willing to contribute to the work of the GNSO, for example, technical, financial or geographic limitations whether the ICANN Board is satisfied with the advice it receives from the Constituencies to ensure that advice reflects consideration of all stakeholder interests and the widest possible consultation with affected parties including other ICANN supporting organisations and advisory committees whether there is sufficient time and opportunity for advice and information from the GNSO Constituencies and whether amending timeframes would increase the quality of the work output whether other supporting organisations and advisory committees such as the At Large Advisory Committee and the Government Advisory Committee have effective opportunities to participate in the policy development process whether the GNSO Council manages the policy development process in a timely and efficient manner looking at the types and kinds of issues under consideration and the resources devoted to that consideration whether the Council effectively manages open forums, mailing lists and public comment opportunities that enable global participation by any affected stakeholders whether the individual Constituencies, in contributing to the development of consensus based policies, conduct their operations to the maximum extent possible, to enable broad participation including outreach activities whether GNSO Council weighted voting patterns are still appropriate in the GNSO's policy development processes whether the GNSO Council has successfully implemented the recommendations of the 2004 GNSO Council Review whether the existing constituency structure could be rationalized, changed or improved in any way to increase participation in the policy development processes within the GNSO whether the GNSO Council Bylaws need amending in any way to reflect improved processes for increasing participation, seeking other stakeholder views and deriving consensus based policies that reflect ICANN's public interest principles 4.3.2 Effectiveness. Analysis in this part of the Review could include the questions outlined below: examination of the time and resources (including staff, financial and outside assistance) used by both Council and the Constituencies to develop policy positions and whether the purpose of GNSO policy development processes is clearly articulated examination of the benefit to all affected parties of the use of ICANN time and resources in developing policy positions and particularly whether Constituency expectations are being met examination of ICANN's Strategic Plan process and how that relates to the development of GNSO policy development processes; examination of the GNSO Strategic Plan process and opportunities for the policy development process to reflect rapid market changes whether the PDP process needs to be amended to reflect new participants, different kinds of issues, more realistic timeframes for workflow and interaction with other ICANN entities and different ways of communicating policy positions, taking into consideration the GNSO Council Review recommendations whether the ICANN Board is satisfied with the policy recommendations it receives from the GNSO and if that advice could be improved in any way analysis of whether the work output from the GNSO Council and Constituencies reflects the expertise and market knowledge of constituency members to ensure best practice policy development whether the GNSO Council recommendations have been implemented successfully and whether further work needs to be done to ensure implementation 4.3.3 Transparency. Analysis in this part of the Review could include the questions outlined below: whether decisions are made by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively; whether those entities which are affected by decisions have adequate mechanisms for participation through the Constituencies whether policy decisions are made in a way which demonstrates that participants are accountable to the Internet community and whether statements of interest are explicitly made on each issue under consideration whether the GNSO's website and the Constituencies' websites operate effectively as tools for transmitting a wide variety of procedural and substantive information on the policy development process whether new technologies and systems could be used to augment the work of the Constituencies and GNSO Council analysis of the recording, publishing and notification of significant input and decisions contributing to the policy development process of the GNSO Council, GNSO taskforces, workgroups and Constituencies analysis of ICANN face to face meetings and their contribution to the work of the GNSO, its taskforces, workgroups and Constituencies in facilitating their contribution to the development of policy advice 4.3.4 Compliance. Analysis in this part of the Review could include the questions outlined below: whether the GNSO Council and the GNSO Constituencies comply with the ICANN Bylaws and with their own rules and procedures whether there is effective alignment of the GNSO structure and policy development process that delivers practical policies which can be effectively implemented whether there are sound linkages between the GNSO's policy development processes and ICANN's policy compliance programme whether there is effective cooperation between the policy development and operational aspects of the ICANN organisation to implement consensus based policy

1 0

Draft Agenda for GNSO Public Forum - Wednesday 6 Dec 2006 Sao Paulo
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 3, 2006

Dec. 3, 2006

Hello All, See below for a draft agenda for the Public Forum. Any feedback, suggestions welcome. Note that the GNSO will also be covering new gTLDs and WHOIS in a separate public forum on Monday 4 Dec 2006. I will leave it to staff to create the necessary : "What it is", "why it is important", "who should attend" sections for the ICANN website. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Draft Agenda for GNSO Public Forum - Wednesday 6 December 2006 8:30am local Sao Paulo time Item 1: Update on PDP-Feb06: Policies for Contractual Conditions, Existing gTLDs - Terms of reference available here: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/tor-pdp-28feb06.html - Related documents: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/ - task force to report on current activities - open mike for public input on current work Item 2: GNSO Review - ICANN has been provided with the LSE's review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) [Report, Annexes]. This report will be used to inform ICANN's effort to develop detailed proposals for improving the GNSO's structures and processes. ICANN's Board will work with the GNSO and the ICANN community to consider this report, along with previous reviews and public input, in a collaborative process to strengthen this key policy-making body. This independent review of the GNSO is the first in a series of such reviews mandated in ICANN's bylaws as part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to evolve and improve its operations. Comments on this report can be posted to gnso-improvements(a)icann.org and reviewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements. - Report is available at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/gnso-review-report-sep06.pdf - Staff to provide a summary of the major recommendations of the LSE review of the GNSO organisation and the previous Patrick Sharry review of the GNSO Council - Update from staff on the Board's plans with respect to establishing a group to consider the report and make recommendations to the Board for approval - Open mike on recommendations (for/against) and also on possible processes the GNSO could use to take the reports and implement changes Item 3: IDN policy update - the GNSO has re-established a GNSO IDN Working Group to identify and specify any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within PDP-Dec05 on new gTLDs. - the terms of reference are available here: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/idn_working_group-18nov06.htm - related documents are available here: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/ - working group to provide an update of their work - open mike on possible policy issues for the GNSO to consider Item 4: Any other issues - open mike on any other policy issues that the GNSO should be considering at this time

2 2

Registry Constituency election result - Edmon Chung
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 3, 2006

Dec. 3, 2006

From: David W. Maher, acting chair of the registry constituency in Sao Paolo On behalf of the Registry Constituency, this will confirm that Edmon Chung has been elected by the Registry Constituency to fill the post on the GNSO that will be vacated by June Seo, after this meeting.

1 0

FYI: Draft procedure on possible conflicts of Whois requirements and national laws is posted for public comments
by Maria Farrell Dec. 3, 2006

Dec. 3, 2006

Dear Council members We have just launched a public comments period on the Procedure for Dealing with Potential Conflicts Between Whois Requirements and Privacy Laws. This item was concluded in the GNSO on 28 November 2005, and at the Board in May 2006. Staff has been working on a draft procedure which closely follows the 'well developed advice on a procedure' developed by the Whois Task Force. Recognising the public policy aspects of this procedure, ICANN has also written to the Chair of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) seeking GAC advice concerning the draft procedure. The procedure and posting area are available here; http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-03dec06.htm All the best, Maria

1 0

by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Dec. 3, 2006

Dec. 3, 2006

http://gac.icann.org/web/meetings/mtg26/gTLDs_principles_on_public_policy_d… Link above is draft GAC principles Philip

1 0

REVISED Schedule related to GNSO Council and Task Force/Working group meetings in Sao Paulo
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 2, 2006

Dec. 2, 2006

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gtld-council[at]gnso.icann.org; pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org; gnso-idn-wg(a)icann.org] Dear All, Attached please find a revised draft schedule that is specifically related to GNSO constituency and task force meetings that will take place in Sao Paulo. Please note that the PDPFeb06 task force meeting is at the original time, Monday 4 December from 08:00 to 10:00. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO related agenda published on GNSO website
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 1, 2006

Dec. 1, 2006

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, The GNSO related agenda is published on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec click below and you will see the updated agenda. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-2-8dec06.shtml Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Taxi price from Sao Paulo airport to hotel
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 1, 2006

Dec. 1, 2006

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, The Vermelho e Branco taxi coop confirm the price is R$106,00 (today this is about US$50) of taxis from the Sao Paulo Airport to the Transamerica Hotel. Thanks to Carlos Afonso for this latest information. Safe travels! Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] DoC Approved .com Agreement
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 1, 2006

Dec. 1, 2006

Dear colleagues Some days, I wonder whether 'we' have forgotten, or abandoned the concepts we believed in, in the days of creating ICANN, and whether some parties who are new to ICANN are fully aware of the concept that those who founded ICANN believed in -- that ICANN would function in a limited but critical role of protecting the public trust in the coordination and management of the critical and unique indicators of the global Internet. This concept stands as valid today as it did when we worked to create ICANN and to move the coordination functions into the private sector. Another concept stands as valid as it did then, even if it is being reinterpreted today. That concept is the bottom up, consensus based approach to decision making. Participation can be differentiated from bottom up consensus based decision making, and perhaps we need to explore that distinction further. These concepts takes on lots of challenges as the Internet grows and expands, of course, and it is naturally important to have broader and deeper participation. But it is also important to retain the support and interest and respect of the stakeholders who created ICANN, and without whose support, the stages of evolution and growth simply will not naturally occur. The story seems simple to grasp: to build an ICANN that is ever evolving, one must include and embrace present stakeholders, AND find ways to reach out to and incorporate new stakeholders. But to focus on only the 'new' without a respect for the present stakeholders seems ill advised. And the concept of consensus based decision making in policy may need to be differentiated from the concept of merely participating. After all, I care about how many digits there are in the North American numbering plan, and in the international calling plan, since I want to know how to dial Vint Cerf's telephone number, or the number of a colleague from the BC, located in Kenya, but I may not want to spend a lot of time debating how standards are set. I may want to know that change is coming, but may not be willing to devote countless hours to studying, informing myself, and understanding the consequences of different choices. I use telephone numbers merely as a neutral example, since most of us do still dial phone numbers, and most policy issues at ICANN may bring put opinions about outcomes. This analogy is intended to point out that 'awareness and following an issue' may be different than informed participation in policy making. Of note, however, even as we may grabble with participation in ICANN's meetings and following ICANN's policy agendas, I see another shift that is of concern. For a variety of reasons, recently, I've reviewed the history of bylaw changes, and other evolutionary 'enhancements' to ICANN materials and position statements, PR, etc. I see changes in language, and I see a marked and quite distinct change in language over the last few years, and the past year in particular, where staff developed documents shift from 'bottom up consensus based' to 'global multi stakeholder participation model'. I see language from staff that shifts from "Internet" to 'internet'. The last is alarming, given the recent rather significant battle fought, and won, by people like me, representing AT&T, Cisco, Lucent, Verizon, BT, France Telecom, Telefonica, ETNO, KDDI, Fujitsu, working closely with governments to ensure that the ITU's Plenipot documents do not use 'internet' in place of "Internet" .Yet, I see documents coming out of ICANN itself with this. For those who don't grasp the issue .. 'internet' means internetworking and allows other entities to encroach into the ICANN work space more easily. "The Internet" is and has been the space where ICANN's role was established and is increasingly acknowledged and accepted. Language, and choice of words is important. Perhaps what we have is new staff -- in visiting the ICANN site, there are a lot of new folks - who lack the historical perspective and are not possibly enabled to interact with and grasp the importance of 'where we came from'. It is easy to think that that isn't important. As my father, recently deceased used to say "if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there". He also told me that history and experience are marvelous teachers, and that is a shame that the young have to wait to get old to have experienced both. :-) Most of us who helped to create ICANN believe that it is to act in the limited but unique role of managing and coordinating the unique indicators, acting in the public trust. But that role is only accepted as it is supportable by the majority of stakeholders, beyond registries and registrars who are suppliers in the model of ICANN, but it must include the business community of users, ISPs, and NGOs, as well as governments. As we come to Sao Paulo, I am asking myself where we are in that challenge -- and how to improve the commitment that I believed in when I helped to found ICANN, and that I still embrace. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:33 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Avri Doria Cc: PDPfeb06; John Jeffrey Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] DoC Approved .com Agreement On 11/30/06 1:11 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: > Why continue working on items that are outside the scope? It's been apparent to me for some time that the interests of the public and the commercial interests of the registries diverge to such a degree on the items in this task force, even the scope of the task force, that it makes little sense to continue working on them together. Since we're never going to reach unanimity, I'm skeptical about the value of of continuing to debate procedure, scope, and substance on every point and in every meeting when it's apparent to everyone that the result of our work, whenever we conclude, will be two reports, one a majority report and another a minority report. I don't mean this as a slight to the registries, or anyone else, it's just an obvious fact that we're never going to reach agreement on a single set of recommendations. In light of this, I wonder whether we should simply split some of our next meetings so we're not taking each other's time debating points that will not be resolved. Bret

1 0