February 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

please let me know off list who is on the line
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 24, 2006

Feb. 24, 2006

Please let me know off the list who is on the line? Please also let me know if will participate for the other parts of the call. Thanks Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FYI - comparison table of 200 / 2006 statements on introduction of new gTLDs
by Maria Farrell Feb. 24, 2006

Feb. 24, 2006

Dear all, Here is a partial comparison of statements on the introduction of new gTLDs prepared in support of today's working session of the GNSO Council. all the best, Maria

1 0

GNSO new gTLDs P
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 24, 2006

Feb. 24, 2006

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO new gTLDs Policy Committee meeting in Washington DC meeting, held on February 24, 2006 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-council-20060224.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#feb Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Board Call
by Michael D. Palage Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

Dear Council Members: The ICANN Board just concluded its teleconference today and took the following actions. (1) Approval of São Paulo, Brazil as the venue for the 2006 ICANN annual meeting the first week in December; and (2) Approved funds to pay the evaluators for their work in connection with the review of the GNSO; Although there was a discussion regarding the VeriSign settlement negotiation, there was no action taking. There is a scheduled call for next week 28-Feb-2006. Although the Chair and secretariat have not yet finalized the agenda for that call it is most likely to involve further VeriSign discussions as well as those items which have not yet been completed from today's call. As always, I will try to keep the council informed of any developments. Best regards, Michael D. Palage

3 4

Very interesting - CircleID: Examining the Proposed Internationalization of TLDs -
by sophiabekele Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

Dear All, I am sending this article for your interest. I do not know James, and had no idea he had the same views as I have been expressing these past couple of weeks until I saw the article. Regards, Sophia "Examining the Proposed Internationalization of TLDs" By: James Seng, Nov 30, 2004 http://www.circleid.com/posts/examining_the_proposed_internationalization_o f_tlds/ Last month, John Klensin wrote an article published here on CircleID regarding Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Top Level Domains (TLD). Based on his Internet Draft, John suggests using language translation in the application for TLD. The advantage of this method is that all existing TLDs can now be represented in any number of languages without additional need for ICANN to create new TLD. While this sounds like a clean solution to the IDN TLD problem, I don’t think it is viable for the following five reasons: 1. Similar idea has been proposed in the IETF IDN Working Group for IDN (See uname and vidn). While John proposal has some minor technical differences, the fact that these similar ideas has been considered and discarded by the IDN Working Group is worth noting1. 2. One of the differences of John proposal is that translations are only done only for TLDs. 2nd Level Domain (2LD) and others remains using IDNA (RFC 3490). From a technical design perspective, such exemption handling are not desirable; it isn’t “keep it short and simple” (KISS)2. Bear in mind that IDNs are fundamental identifiers also used embedded into other technical protocols (e.g. URL, URI, Email Address, Jabber Address, SIP Address), such inconsistency would introduce additional complexity in other Internet protocols. 3. In the article, John said: The country-code list changes only very slowly. ICANN plans for the generic name list to grow moderately, but not dramatically, in the foreseeable future. Maintaining a translation table in which around 300 names are kept together with convenient local forms is a fairly simple matter of programming. While that is technical true, getting the translation table into the application is a big challenge itself as we witness how long it took IDNA to be adopted by browser. In fact, after nearly 2 years, Internet Explorer still lacks IDNA support although we know now it is in its roadmap. draft-klensin-idn-tld also propose that “We suggest that c authors of applications programs may want to maintain a table that contain lists of TLDs and locally-desirable names for each one” But it fails to mention how the table is going to be managed and later updated. Will every applications needs to be updated or download a new text file whenever ICANN adds a new TLD? Who will decide what’s the ‘locally desirable names”? Dealing with such problem with a single text file (e.g. TLD.TXT) downloadable from IANA may seem viable in the short run. But in the long run, just like we can’t cope with HOST.TXT back in 1980s which resulted in the creation of DNS, a TLD.TXT will not scale and we will inevitably fall back to using some sort of directory look-up mechanism, or worst, reinventing DNS. 4. Translation is also a fairly instable with variation based on local and language. And names of countries are even trickier. For example Singapore, officially name is 新加坡 but it is often shorten to be 新国 or 星國. Such inconsistency is not acceptable in a DNS protocol where uniqueness is critical. You just cant ask your user to type in 新国 or星國, depending which application they using or which locale they using. I am quite sure these problems exist for all languages, regardless for country names or generic names. Just for fun, try getting a group of your favorite linguists to translate .COM and .BIZ, and then step back, get lots of donuts and diet cokes and watch the show. 5. While this is the last reason I am going to give you, and I am sure there are more, it is the most important one too and perhaps the easiest to understand. If you can’t remember the above four technical reasons, then just remember this one: How on earth is the Internet community going to explain to the rest of the world that a single company is going to control all .COM in their language? IDN TLD is important and many groups are already asking for one. Some more important then others, like Arabic Domain Names is horrible to use when mixed with Latin TLD. However, ICANN cannot shy away from releasing IDN TLD by using such technical short-cut, by moving their burden to the applications developers. If ICANN indeed is indeed the responsible for “generic and country code Top-Level Domain name system managed” (quote ICANN ), then do so, and make it count. 1 A detail discussion why so those proposals were rejected is an article on its own...some day perhaps. 2 IDNA is design to apply to all internationalized labels, regardless whether it is TLD, 2LD, 3LD etc, in accordance to the KISS principle.

1 0

Revised GNSO Council members "Statements of Interest" 21 Feb. 2006]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised updated Statements of Interest. Bruce Tonkin revised his statement. Please let me know if there is anything to be changed before the statements are published on the GNSO website. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen GNSO Council members Updated Statements of Interest 20 February 2006 Bruce Tonkin - Registrar Constituency - GNSO Council chair I am employed full-time as Chief Technology Officer by Melbourne IT Limited. Melbourne IT has a registrar accreditation agreement with ICANN. Melbourne IT also has a contractual relationship with most gtld registries (for a current list see http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html) and many cctld registries as a registrar. Melbourne IT holds ten percent of the shares in Neulevel, the operator of the .biz registry. .................................................................... Ross Rader - - Registrar Constituency I am the Director of Research and Innovation for Tucows Inc., an ICANN accredited registrar and Internet services vendor. Tucows is a minority shareholder in Afilias LLC, with roughly an 8% shareholding. Neither Tucows, nor I, is in possession of, nor have access to Registry Sensitive or Registry Proprietary information as defined by any relevant registry operating contracts as a result of this relationship. Tucows provides consulting and application hosting services to other registrars and Internet services providers. I am not an officer, director, consultant, or employee of any of these customer organizations nor am I specifically involved in providing services to them. The URL for this statement is: http://www.byte.org/blog/_WebPages/StatementofInterestsforRossRader.html ........................................................................ Thomas Keller - - Registrar Constituency I'm a fulltime employee of Schlund+Partner AG. Schlund+Partner AG is ICANN accredited and is conducting business with almost all major gTLDS and ccTLDs. Schlund holds a minority share in Afilias LLC for investment purposes.Besides domain name registrations Schlund is mainly offering webhosting and email services to end users. I'm a member of the DENIC Technical Advisory Council. ....................................................................... Philip Sheppard - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am Public Affairs Manager for AIM - European Brands Association, a Brussels-based trade association involved in public affairs activities. AIM represents the branded goods industries in Europe on key issues which affect the ability of brand manufacturers to design, distribute and market their brands. AIM's membership groups 1800 companies of all sizes through corporate members and national associations in 21 countries. These companies are mostly active in every day consumer goods. AIM's mission is to create for brands an environment of fair and vigorous competition, fostering innovation and guaranteeing maximum value to consumers. I hold various non-remunerated directorships unrelated to ICANN. I am a contact point for several domain names. Honorary positions: - President elect 2007 International Public Relations Association (IPRA), the global professional association for the PR profession. - I am a Freeman of the City of London. ...................................................................... Marilyn Cade - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am an elected officer and councilor from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC). I own and manage a consulting business that is primarily focused on Internet Governance and convergence issues involving Internet infrastructure and applications. My business is focused at the nexus of global policy and technological convergence. The topics I address include, but are not limited to: Internet Governance, VoIP, IP-TV, Data Retention, Internet intermediary liability, SPAM, ICANN, and cyber security in IP networks. I chair the Global Public Policy Committee at ITAA, and I advise the Global IP Alliance on international VoIP and Internet Governance. I also convene and coordinate various industry events and meetings on a variety of topics, primarily focused on working with industry to advocate policy positions to various governments and multi lateral organizations, including the OECD, ITU, CITEL, and APEC. I speak frequently as an expert at business and professional conferences that are held both in the US and in other countries and am usually remunerated for such events. Such remuneration does not in any way make such entities clients, nor imply client obligations. The clients of my business are concerned about the security and stability of the Internet, are registrants and users of the Internet, and are strong advocates of ICANN’s role in managing and coordinating the technical aspects of the Internet. I do not believe that I have conflicts of interest with ICANN. From time to time, I may have clients who have a direct policy interest in a particular policy area. At present, two clients that I advise have an interest in reserved names in gTLDs. As my business’ clients and their interests change, I will continue to update my statement of interest ......................................................................... Grant Forsyth - Commercial and Business Users constituency I am one of three representatives from the Business Constituency on the ICANN GNSO Names Council. I am currently employed by TelstraClear in the role of Manager Industry and Regulatory Affairs. TelstraClear is a full-service telecommunications operator that operates two ISPs, ClearNet and ParadiseNet. TelstraClear is an accredited registrar of .nz ccTLD names only under the new InternetNZ SRS. While TelstraClear presently makes no use of ENUM, it has an interest in its potential and an expectation that in due course it may wish to offer commercial services that use ENUM. I am elected Councillor of InternetNZ, the delegated .nz ccTLD manager. I have a personal domain registered in the .gen.nz space. I have not undertaken any paid work for either ICANN or InternetNZ. I have not worked for nor represented an ICANN Registry or ICANN Accredited Registrar. ............................................................................. Anthony Harris - ISPCP Constituency I am under contract as full time executive director of CABASE, a non-profit Internet industry association, incorporated as such in Argentina since 1999. - consulting work done for ICANN - NONE - consulting work done for a gtld or cctld registry, or current applicant to become a gtld or cctld registry - NONE - consulting work done for a registrar - NONE - employment with a registry or registrar - NONE .......................................................................... Greg Ruth - ISPCP Constituency I am employed full time by Verizon Federal Network Systems. Verizon has no contractual relationships with any registries or registrars. ......................................................................... Tony Holmes - ISPCP Constituency I am employed within BT Group's Chief Technology Office with the responsibility for determining numbering, naming and addressing policy and strategy for BT Group PLC. BT is a large ISP and infrastructure provider and operates in many countries across the world. BT is also an accredited ICANN Registrar, but is not currently operational. I participate in, and hold official positions in a number of other technology focused technical and policy making bodies at both the national and international level, none of which cause conflict with my work in ICANN. I have no employment, contract, financial interest or other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except BT. I am an elected representative of the ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency to the GNSO. ........................................................................... Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users Constituency I have no conflicts of interest. ...................................................................... Mawaki Chango - Non Commercial Users Constituency I am currently a full-time Ph.D. student and Graduate Assistant, and I represent the Non-Commercial Users Constituency on the GNSO Council. In addition, I am involved in social activism through my participation in ACSIS (African Civil Society for Information Society), as ICT policy advocator, and advisor to the ACSIS’ President. Over the last five years, I have been involved as a consultant with UNESCO, the International Development Research Centre, Open Society Initiative for West Africa (Dakar), the Eduardo Mondlane University (Maputo), and EvalNet (Johannesburg). I have never been involved in any business related to the distribution and operation of Internet resources. ....................................................................... Sophia Bekele - Nominations Committee appointee to the GNSO Council I represent a California based, privately held company, CBS Enterprise Group, which is engaged in international business. As part of its portfolio of services, the company provides systems integration services through CBS International, which delivers domain registration, web hosting and email services to end users via a reseller, agreement with registrars. Less than 10% of CBS's business is derived from these services. In my personal capacity, I do not have any of my moneys, invested in companies that are in the registrar businesses. I do not believe that any activities of the Council or ICANN could have a material effect on the work I do at CBS International. .................................................................... Avri Doria - Nominations Committee appointee to the GNSO Council I am an independent research consultant and have no employment, contract, financial interest, share ownership or any other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except as a holder, and fee payer, of several domain names in .com, .net and .org ...................................................................... Maureen Cubberley - Nominations Committee appointee to the GNSO Council Statement of Interest related to ICANN and the work of the GNSO Council I am a Canadian and I am currently employed in Canada by the Department of Culture, Heritage and Tourism, Government of Manitoba, as the Director of Public Library Services. I am also a senior partner in the consulting firm ASM Advanced Strategic Management Consultants, based in Ontario, Canada. I hold several non-remunerated directorships for various not-for-profit organizations. None of these organizations are related to ICANN. In the past, I have been a Director and the Chair of the Board of Directors of the .ca ccTLD registry CIRA. As a current holder of several .ca domain names, I am a member of CIRA. Consulting work done for ICANN - NONE Consulting work done for a gtld -NONE or cctld registry, - In 2004 I provided consulting services to CIRA. or current applicant to become a gtld or cctld registry - NONE Consulting work done for a registrar - NONE Employment with a registry or registrar - NONE In 2004, I served as Chair of the Business and Financial Evaluation Team, the members of which were appointed by ICANN for the purpose of reviewing 10 applications for new Sponsored gTLDs. ICANN provided each of the Team members, including myself, with an honourarium. I have no financial interest, share ownership or any other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except as a holder of domain names. .............................................................................. Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I am an elected representative of the Intellectual Property Constituency to the GNSO. I am an attorney and currently hold the position of Global Director of Intellectual Property Rights, Brand Protection Portfolio, for Nokia Inc. Nokia Corporation is an investor and Board Member of Mobile Top Level Domain "mTLD", the registry for .mobi. My responsibilities include managing the trademark, domain name, product design and brand enforcement groups of Nokia Corporation. I am a member of the 2006 Nominating Committee of ICANN. I am also on the Board of Directors for the International Trademark Assn. and a member of other IPR related professional organizations including ECTA, AIPLA, and IPO. .......................................................................... Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I am full time employed as Deputy Director for Global Legal Policy by the IFPI Secretariat. I am also elected representative of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) to the GNSO Council. The IFPI Secretariat is the head office of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) representing the recording industry worldwide. IFPI is a non-commercial private sector non-governmental organisation, funded through membership contributions. IFPI is a member of the IPC. IFPI’s members are 1415 record companies, including EMI Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music, and Universal Music and many independent record companies. The IFPI Secretariat provides services to its member and to 48 affiliated national recording industry bodies; and is responsible for co-ordinating international strategies in the key areas of the organisation's work: enforcement of copyright and trademarks, advice on technology and legal developments, relations with governments and national industry bodies, representation in international organisations, litigation, market research, and public relations. .................................................................... Kiyoshi I. Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I, the undersigned, Kiyoshi I. Tsuru am a partner with the law firm of BELLO, GALLARDO, MORALES Y TSURU, S.C., in Mexico City. I specialize in Intellectual Property matters. I serve as a member of the Advisory Committee of NIC Mexico, which is in turn a member of the ccNSO of ICANN. From time to time, I have served as outside counsel to NIC Mexico. I am the country manager for Mexico of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and a WIPO Panelist regarding disputes between domain names and trademarks. ........................................................................ Ken Stubbs - gTLD Registries constituency I am a Director of, and member of the Executive committee of Afilias, Limited. - an ICANN-contracted registry I am also a member of the Policy Advisory Board of the DotMobi Ltd. (operator of the ".mobi" registry). I am an elected representative of the Registry Constituency to the GNSO council and a member of the Nominating Committee In my personal capacity, I have less than 5% of my net worth invested in companies that are involved in ICANN-contracted registry services Other than the entities listed above, I have no other current or "executory" business or contractual relationships with any entity or individuals who currently have business before the GNSO or ICANN. ....................................................................... Cary Karp - gTLD Registries constituency I am Director of Internet Strategy and Technology at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (NRM), an agency of the Swedish government. This is a full-time salaried position. I serve in a similar capacity for the International Council of Museums (ICOM) of which I am an individual member and NRM is an institutional member. I receive a small additional honorarium for that activity. I hold a non-remunerated position as the President and CEO of the Museum Domain Management Association (MuseDoma), the Sponsoring Organization for the .museum TLD. NRM is the largest museum in Sweden and charged with advising private and corporate entities in that country in matters relating to its sphere of expertise. I am regularly involved in such action. Current activity includes a joint initiative with NIC-SE, the operator of the .se ccTLD, which is collaborating with NRM in a project in the context of the Swedish national "Year of Cultural Diversity 2006". I also advise NIC-SE in general matters relating to IDN. I may from time to time receive separate honoraria for advisory services provided as a result of my position at NRM, and may be similarly compensated for writing and speaking engagements. ICOM is an NGO maintaining formal relations with UNESCO and having consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I am directly involved in activity conducted by ICOM in its relationship with UNESCO. I represent MuseDoma in the gTLD Registry Constituency and am the elected representative for the sTLDs on the GNSO Council. I conduct no other activity with, and have no other interests of any kind that involve, entities maintaining business or contractual relationships with ICANN. .................................................................... June Seo - gTLD Registries constituency I am an employee of VeriSign, Inc., which provides certain domain registration services (directly or through its subsidiaries) for a number of top-level domains, including the following: .com; .net; .jobs; .cc; .tv; .bz. In my personal capacity I have less than 5% of my net worth invested in companies that are involved in registration services for top level domains. I am also an elected representative of the gTLD Registry Constituency to the ICANN GNSO Council. To the best of my knowledge, I have no ownership interest in any entity that currently has business before the GNSO or ICANN, other than as described above. ......................................................................... Bret Fausett - At Large Advisory Committee representative to the GNSO Council I am an attorney, living and working in Los Angeles, licensed to practice law in California (United States). I serve on the GNSO as a liaison from the At Large Advisory Committee, which is charged with representing the interests of end users in all of ICANN's activities. I do not accept legal or consulting work for companies that have business before the GNSO or ICANN. In my personal capacity, I have less than 20% of my savings invested in companies that are in the registry services and registrar businesses, including Tucows, Verisign, and Neustar. I do not believe that any activities of the Council or ICANN could have a material effect on the value of my investments. ...................................................................... Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Advice from the General Counsels office on the use of proxy votes
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

I was recalling these discussions from earlier. Seems strange that this isn't documented. -----Original Message----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:15:02 To:<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Advice from the General Counsels office on the use of proxy votes I have this edit from my personal records: Rules of Procedure for the DNSO version 7 Adopted by the Names Council 26 February 2001. Amended (new item 8) 26 February 2001. Amended (new item 3 and re-numbering) 11 July 2001. Amended (new item 9, 10, 11) 13 December 2001 Amended (new item 12) 10 April 2001 (added Jan 2002) Amended (new item 13) 18 April 2002 Contents 1. NC Chair 2. Conduct of NC meetings 3. NC committees and task forces 4. Intake committee 5. Proxies .. Section 5 describes proxies in the way we have been using them. Philip Regards, Marilyn Cade

2 1

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Friday 24 Feb 06
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

Hello Avri, > > ok, i am confused. > > does this mean we no longer have a meeting but if we want to > participate in a discussion we call in at midnight CET? > > We will still have a meeting - but no decisions will be made at the meeting of 24 Feb. Note that all Council members are welcome to submit comments/suggestions on the terms of reference via this email list prior to that meeting. An updated draft of the terms of reference will be produced from this meeting. The next meeting for decision will be 2 March 2006. I am hoping at that meeting that any further changes will be very minor. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Friday 24 Feb 06
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

Hello All, Given that the time of this Council meeting is not ideal for those wishing to attend via teleconference, I suggest we simply "discuss" the terms of reference at 6pm in Washington on Friday. The Council would be free to invite other constituency reps from the Committee meeting earlier in the day to participate if they wish. We can then "decide" the terms of reference during a teleconference at the usual time for this time of the year. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2006 4:11 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - > Friday 24 Feb 06 > > Hello All, > > As discussed during the call today, here is a draft agenda > for the meeting that will occur following the new gTLD > committee meetings on Friday. I have scheduled it for the > end of the day (6pm). Please note that though a constituency > may have alternative representatives at the committee meeting > earlier in the day, that the Council meeting/teleconference > will require Council members only (either in-person of via > teleconference). > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Friday 24 February 2006 > > Coordinated Universal Time UTC 23:00 > > (3pm Los Angeles, 6pm Washington DC, 11pm London, 10am (next > day) Melbourne ) > > Item 1: Approval of minutes of 6 February 2006 > > Item 2: Terms of reference for PDP-Feb06 > - Decide the terms of reference for the PDP (Under the > provisions of section 7(b) of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws) > > Item 3: Any other business > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > >

3 2

Advice from the General Counsels office on the use of proxy votes
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

Hello All, After Cary Karp raised a question about the counting of proxy votes during our meeting on 6 Feb 2006, I sought advice from the ICANN General Counsel on whether our past use of proxy votes (which dates back to the rules of procedure for the DNSO Names Council) was consistent with the current ICANN bylaws. See the advice below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: John Jeffrey Sent: Friday, 17 February 2006 5:58 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Olof Nordling; Dan Halloran Subject: Re: Regarding proxy votes at a Council meeting Bruce, Thank you for your inquiry concerning the practice of "proxy" voting which occurs during the GNSO Council meetings. In follow up to your inquiry and in furtherance to our discussion earlier today here is some additional information and my office's opinion regarding the same. We agree with you that there is no provision for proxy voting under the current ICANN Bylaws <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/ bylaws-08apr05.htm>. The current Bylaws (Article X, Section 4) include the following provision concerning GNSO Council Procedures: "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. ..." <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/ bylaws-08apr05.htm#X-3.4> Bylaws Article X, Section 6, provides that "Initially, the policy- development procedures to be followed by the GNSO shall be as stated in Annex A to these Bylaws. These procedures may be supplemented or revised in the manner stated in Section 3(4) of this Article." Since no modified procedures have been recommended by Council or approved by the Board, the only relevant procedures are those stated in Bylaws Annex A ("GNSO Policy-Development Process") <http:// www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA>. You provided a link to the "Rules of Procedure of the DNSO Names Council, Version 7" <http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names- proceduresv7.shtml#5>, but that document is no longer in effect. The DNSO document indicates that it was last amended on 18 April 2002. That entire document was obsoleted and superceded by the adoption of ICANN's "New Bylaws" on 15 December 2002. The new Bylaws provisions on the GNSO (which assumed the responsibilities of the former DNSO) continued a substantial portion of the old procedures from the DNSO procedures document, but the New Bylaws also clearly did not retain other features of the old procedures (including any reference to "proxies"). The GNSO Council's practice of allowing Council members to participate in a meeting (by casting a vote) even though they are not "present" does not appear to be consistent with Bylaws Article X, Section 3(8), which provides (in part) that "... the GNSO Council shall act at meetings. Members of the GNSO Council may participate in a meeting of the GNSO Council through use of (i) conference telephone or similar communications equipment, provided that all members participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another ..." In other words, under the current Bylaws a Council member who is unable to speak to or hear other Councillors may not "participate" (including voting) in a Council meeting held in person or by telephone. That same section of the Bylaws (X-3.8) provides that "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council ..." This language concerning members "entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes" appears to relate to the weighted voting provision <http:// www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.2> and not to any otherwise unreferenced scheme for voting by proxy. We recognize that this may be a "long standing process", but the Council should take prompt action to come into compliance with the Bylaws' requirements. The Council is free to recommend modifications to these procedures (including perhaps a modification to anticipate the participation of deaf or hard of hearing people on the Council). If you'd like Dan and I would be happy to work with you to craft whatever procedures would be inline with the Council's preferences, provided they are in accordance with ICANN's other Bylaws, mission and core values. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any other questions. best regards, John Jeffrey General Counsel and Secretary ICANN On Feb 6, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > Hello John, > > It has been long standing practice for Council members to appoint > another Council member to act as their proxy when voting on particular > issues if they are unable to attend a particular meeting. > > > (the relevant section of the bylaws is Article X, section 3, clause 8: > "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of > GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the > transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO > Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum > shall be acts of the GNSO Council" > > I can't find a specific reference to proxies within the ICANN bylaws, > but there is mention in our current operating procedures, which can be > found at: > http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml#5 > > If a Council member holds a proxy for another Council member - does > this count towards either the quorum requirement, or the majority vote > requirement? > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin John Jeffrey General Counsel & Secretary Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 91206

5 6