February 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Regarding proxies
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006

Hello Marilyn, (1) Right now we are subject to the existing ICANN bylaws. - we can create our own operating procedures that are consistent with those - it is possible that the bylaws may have had some unforeseen side-effects on our long established process for using proxies I am first seeking clarification on whether we are complaint with the bylaws. (2) Where we think the bylaws can be improved, we can certainly propose those to the Board to consider. This may also be an outcome of the GNSO Review process. (3) Until the bylaws are changed, we need to do our best to comply with the current bylaws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Regarding proxies
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006

Hello Marilyn, > > I know that some of the new Councillors may find the proxy use > confusing. > Glen, could you perhaps write out a short description of how > proxies are used, based on our past history, and Bruce might > review it? > For information, I have also requested some advice from the ICANN General Counsel's office with respect to our current use of proxies. The bylaws don't make explicit mention of proxies. (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 I am seeking clarification on whether proxies count with respect to establishing quorum or for voting during a meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

RE: [council] FW: Vote on the GNSO call
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006

Hello June, > > FYI - I would like to clarify my intentions around my proxy > statement during the initial voting procedure in Yesterday's call. > Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Bruce

1 0

FW: Vote on the GNSO call
by Seo, June Feb. 7, 2006

Feb. 7, 2006

Dear Councilors, FYI - I would like to clarify my intentions around my proxy statement during the initial voting procedure in Yesterday's call. Regards, June -----Original Message----- From: Seo, June Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:03 AM To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG' Subject: RE: Vote on the GNSO call Dear Glen, Thank you very much for your note. I hereby verify that I voted "No" on the motion below. Just to clarify my intentions for the proxy statement I made during the initial voting procedure, I think I should have made statements in advance on why I wanted to do it earlier than my proxy statement. As I mentioned during the call, I am in the Council to represent my constituency's position, not my personal one. The Articles of Operations of the gTLD Constituency also require me to represent the views of the Constituency. I do not believe there are any conflicts of interests for me to vote in this motion, but I wanted to avoid any probable misperceptions of conflicts of interests by giving my proxy to Ken. For the Washington meetings, I will not be able to attend due to other prior obligations. Thanks and Regards, June Seo -----Original Message----- From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:10 AM To: Seo, June Subject: Vote on the GNSO call Dear June, It was great that you were on the call last night and I hope that you are well recovered from your surgical intervention. Thank you for your Interest Statement. I would just like to check with you what your vote was on the GNSO council call on February 6, 2006. I have noted the following, but please correct me and add what comments you would like: "Council resolves to initiate a Policy Development Process in line with it's 17 January 2006 request for an issues report the intent of which was to address the broader policy issues raised." Vote: 19 votes in favour, Marilyn Cade, Philip Sheppard, Grant Forsyth, (CBUC) Ute Decker, Kiyoshi Tsuru, (IPC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (2), Ross Rader (2), Tom Keller (2)(Registrars constituency), Maureen Cubberley, Sophia Bekele, Avri Doria (Nominating committee appointees), (18 votes) Kiyoshi Tsuru voted a proxy in favour for Lucy Nichols (IPC) who was absent. 6 votes against, Cary Karp (2), Ken Stubbs (2), June Seo (2)(gTLD registries constituency) 1 abstention Mawaki Chango (NCUC) 1 person was not on the call and did not provide a proxy, Norbert Klein (NCUC)" Would you please also let me know whether you will attending the Washington meetings on the 24 and 25 February 2006. Thank you so very much Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council motions 6/7 February 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 7, 2006

Feb. 7, 2006

Hello Glen, > > 6 votes against, Cary Karp (2), Ken Stubbs (2), June Seo > (2)(gTLD registries constituency) > June may wish to clarify this, but I believe June passed a proxy to Ken Stubbs as he wanted to avoid any perceived case of a conflict of interest with respect to his vote. Regards, Bruce

2 1

Possible meeting with the GAC working group on gTLDs on Sunday, 26 March 2006 in Wellington, New Zealand
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 7, 2006

Feb. 7, 2006

Hello All, Suzanne Sene, the GAC Liaison to the GNSO Council, has asked if the Council would be available to meet with the GAC Working group on gTLDs for a two hour timeslot on Sunday morning, 26 March 2006 in New Zealand. Note from the GAC communiqué http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac23com.pdf in Vancouver: "In view of the range and significance of the public policy issues associated with the introduction of new generic top level domains (gTLDs), the GAC agreed to initiate work on public policy applicable to new gTLDs. This initiative is intended to identify the public policy issues and contribute to the policy development process currently underway in ICANN." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council motions 6/7 February 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

Hello All, > > "Council resolves to initiate a Policy Development Process in > line with it's 17 January 2006 request for an issues report > the intent of which was to address the broader policy issues raised." > > Vote: 19 votes in favour, Marilyn Cade, Philip Sheppard, > Grant Forsyth, > (CBUC) Ute Decker, Kiyoshi Tsuru, (IPC) Tony Holmes, Tony > Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin > (2), Ross Rader (2), Tom Keller (2)(Registrars constituency), > Maureen Cubberley, Sophia Bekele, Avri Doria (Nominating > committee appointees), (18 votes) Kiyoshi Tsuru voted a proxy > in favour for Lucy Nichols (IPC) who was absent. > > 6 votes against, Cary Karp (2), Ken Stubbs (2), June Seo > (2)(gTLD registries constituency) > > 1 abstention Mawaki Chango (NCUC) > 1 person was not on the call and did not provide a proxy, > Norbert Klein > (NCUC) > Please also note that for this motion to pass, it required a "a Supermajority Vote of the Council members present". "A Supermajority Vote means a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members present at a meeting of the applicable body." (for reference see section 3(c) and section 16 of Annex A to the ICANN bylaws) Qourom for a meeting is defined as "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" There were a total of 19, out of a possible 21, Council members present at the meeting (Norbert Klein and Lucy Nichols were not present) representing a total of 25 votes out of a possible 27 votes. This met the requirement for quorum. The motion was carried with 18 votes from members present, which represented a SuperMajority Vote of the Council members present. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council motions 6/7 February 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

[To council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Ahead of complete minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 6/7 February 2006, the following motion was passed by a supermajority vote: "Council resolves to initiate a Policy Development Process in line with it's 17 January 2006 request for an issues report the intent of which was to address the broader policy issues raised." Vote: 19 votes in favour, Marilyn Cade, Philip Sheppard, Grant Forsyth, (CBUC) Ute Decker, Kiyoshi Tsuru, (IPC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (2), Ross Rader (2), Tom Keller (2)(Registrars constituency), Maureen Cubberley, Sophia Bekele, Avri Doria (Nominating committee appointees), (18 votes) Kiyoshi Tsuru voted a proxy in favour for Lucy Nichols (IPC) who was absent. 6 votes against, Cary Karp (2), Ken Stubbs (2), June Seo (2)(gTLD registries constituency) 1 abstention Mawaki Chango (NCUC) 1 person was not on the call and did not provide a proxy, Norbert Klein (NCUC) A procedural motion was passed by the GNSO Council: To hold a GNSO Council teleconference on 16 February 2006 and to hold a physical meeting of GNSO Council committee where constituencies could send one or more representatives round about 24/25 February 2006 in Washington DC. 22 votes in favour. Ute Decker, Kiyoshi Tsuru with proxy for Lucy Nichols, and Greg Ruth did not vote as they had dropped off the call, and Norbert Klein was not present on the call from the beginning. Kind regards. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

GNSO Council meeting MP3 recording 6 Feb. 06
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 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 Council teleconference, held on February 6, 2006 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20060206.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

GNSO Issues Report: .COM Agreement
by Philip Sheppard Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

> Council, > A few personal reflections on the GC's advice to us. > The issues report on dot com contains general counsel's (GC) advice on scope. The GC > concludes we are out of scope but I find the reasoning overly narrow. > The GC considered the PDP scope article: "1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; > 2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; > 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for > occasional updates; > 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or > 5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy." > > And the GC states: "a) any such issues resulting from this request are specifically targeting the 2005 Proposed .COM Registry Agreement, and therefore such policies do not apply to multiple situations or organizations"; > - Surely illogical. The essence of the GNSO concern is that GNSO consensus policy which is "broadly applicable to multiple situations or organisations" has been REMOVED from the specific proposed agreement. > - "b) any such issues resulting from this request are specifically targeting the 2005 Proposed .COM Registry Agreement will not have lasting value or applicability, particularly where that agreement has already been supplanted by the 2006 Proposed .COM Registry (Agreement);" > - Surely irrelevant. This would be relevant if the character of the 2006 agreement was a radical shift from the 2005 agreement. IT IS NOT! > - "c) any such issues resulting from this request are specifically targeting the 2005 Proposed .COM Registry Agreement are unlikely to provide a guide or framework for future decisions making, particularly as in this case where the proposed version of the agreement for which the comments have been raised has already been supplanted and amended (where possible) in response to the community feedback." > - Surely irrelevant. The issues of concern to the GNSO have been raised in community feedback and ignored. > The issues report quotes Council's December resolution for which a key recital is: > "Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the proposed > settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO"; > > It was this resolution which underpins Council's request for an issues report. > The issues report seems to circumvents the pertinent issues: > a) that existing and binding ICANN consensus policy is being ignored in the proposed > Agreement, > b) and the precedence this sets, > c) the precedent set for other issues. > - > This issues report disappoints. > > > Philip

2 1