June 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Agenda for GNSO Public Forum
by Bruce Tonkin June 13, 2006

June 13, 2006

Hello All, Here is a set of proposed agenda topics to include in the ICANN GNSO Public Forum in Marrakech. GNSO Public Forum (1) Initial report on new gTLD policy - see: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00144.html - summary of draft recommendations - outline of areas where further feedback is needed - open mike (2) Update on WHOIS policy work - update on current work on what data collected should be available for public access in the context of the purpose of WHOIS, and how to access data that is not available for public access. - open mike (3) Update on policy work on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs - see http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-pcceg-feb06/msg00085.html - summary of Preliminary Task Force Report - update on current work - open mike (4) Update on Policy work on Internationalised Domain Names - see http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02464.html - summary of draft issues report - work underway on review of issues report by GNSO working group, and joint GNSO-ccNSO working group - open mike (5) Any update on GNSO Review Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest
by Marilyn Cade June 9, 2006

June 9, 2006

Dear John For some time now, it has been a good idea to bring the Council, and therefore its TFs, into alignment with a single ICANN approach on statements of Interest and Conflicts of Interest. There has even been discussion of this at the Council level, and I know that you have had some thoughts relevant to this, from our discussions when I asked you to clarify the ICANN policies re conflicts and "interests" when I launched my new business, and left AT&T. I would assume that the same requirements of the Board, should be generalizable to the SOs, and their TFs. I hereby request that the General Counsel's office attend the next Council call and provide clarification of what is the ICANN policy and how it is complied with by the Board, and any members of the Advisory Committees, and then, perhaps we can discuss how to create a mirror process for at least this SO. However, given that conflicts apply to all SOs and Advisory Committees, perhaps a unified approach makes sense. I have attempted to address the questions raised, and it seems to me that there is no standard approach across the SOS, and consistency with the Board practices on how client relationships are declared - e.g. I understand that the list of clients is provided confidentially to a "conflicts" committee, or something line that. Perhaps we can just enlist the same Board committee to be the recipient of the "client" lists of any Councilors, or TF members. I think this is a short list of those who might be providing such a list, and it should not be onerous to the Board committee to provide that same "repository and review". That may not be the answer, but I'm sure that there is one that is appropriate. In the interest of fairness and non discriminatory treatment of all Councilors and TF members, this seems the most appropriate step to take. As you know, I have previously raised the need for this process. We are all very busy, and I respect that. However, given the concerns expressed by a colleague of mine from industry [see string below], I urge that this issue be addressed quickly. Best regards, Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of David W. Maher Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:40 PM To: Marilyn Cade; pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: 'John Jeffrey'; Bruce Tonkin; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest Dear Marilyn: Thank you for your message. I do not believe that disclosure of your clients related to the single letter names is adequate. Are you saying that your only clients who might have an interest in the outcome of the PDPFEB06 are "AT&T and Overstock.com."? If you have other clients that might have an interest, they should be disclosed, publicly and promptly. As I said, the PDP participants are entitled to know who is paying you to promote the positions you take. Best regards David At 10:56 AM 6/7/2006, Marilyn Cade wrote: >Dear David, > >Thank you for raising your concern openly so that it can be responded to and >address any concerns or questions that may exist on the part of any TF >member, or members of the ICANN community. > >In Brussels, I named my clients related to the single letter names in our >discussion, and again, yesterday, on the call I stated that the clients for >the area of reserved names were AT&T and Overstock.com. As it turns out, >AT&T is not interested in single letters, but "symbols". Not to bore >everyone here but symbols have different technological issues than single >letters and thus it is very unlikely that there would be any discussion >feasible of releasing symbols of any nature. > >I'm not sure if you are asking if I am trying to represent clients, but >without compensation, with the idea that they pay me for "outcomes". If that >is the question, then no. Not the case. > >Let me address statements of interest, however. I agree with David that the >statements are not often easy to read for implications on conflicts, when >they only mention the name of a company, or suggest that the only issue is >whether there is a financial relationship to a registry or registrar. Let me >support David's call for all TF members to examine their statements and >think about whether their interests are clearly identified. > > >AS I think everyone knows, the Council and its TFs are guided by policies >that also affect the Board of Directors. > >Thanks again, David, for asking so that this can be addressed. > >Best Regards, > >Marilyn Cade > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org >[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of David W. Maher >Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:52 AM >To: pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest > >In yesterday's teleconf, I again raised the issue of Marilyn Cade's >failure to comply with the requirements for filing a statement of >interest in order to participate in this PDP. >The statements of interest on file are available at: >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/statements-of-interest-pdp-feb06 - >apr.html > >Marilyn's statement includes the following: >"The clients of my business are concerned about the security and >stability 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 that is, o publicly could be active at ICANN. At >present, two clients that I advise have an interest in reserved names >in gTLDs. I have disclosed that to the gNSO Council, and to the >Business Constituency and in public statements in the ICANN's public >forum and to the ICANN senior staff." >This is not an adequate disclosure. It is clearly inconsistent with >the extent of disclosure made by other participants. The fact that >disclosure may have been made in other fora does not excuse the >failure to disclose the identity of these clients to this PDP. >We are entitled to know who is paying Marilyn to take positions on >the issues in this PDP. We are also entitled to know what >arrangements she may have for compensation contingent on the outcome >of this PDP, even if there is not currently a client relationship. >David W. Maher >Senior Vice President - Law & Policy >Public Interest Registry >1775 Wiehle Ave, #102A >Reston, VA 20190 USA >(v) +1-312-876-8055 >(f) +1-312-876-7934 >http://www.pir.org

2 2

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest
by Marilyn Cade June 8, 2006

June 8, 2006

Bret, I mentioned both in Brussels and on the call that I also coordinate the denials process at ttpc. I have no relationship to the Registry, but to the Secretary of TTPC. I provide no advice on registry services. I stated that in Brussels,but am happy to state it again here. However, my response to Dave Maher's request about single letter names was why I mentioned AT&T and Overstock.com on the earlier email. -----Original Message----- From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:28 AM To: David W. Maher; 'Marilyn Cade'; pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: 'John Jeffrey'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest Marilyn? Do your clients with ICANN-related interests extend past AT&T and Overstock? -----Original Message----- From: "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org> To: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro>; "'Marilyn Cade'" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: "'John Jeffrey'" <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>; "'Bruce Tonkin'" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; council(a)gnso.icann.org Sent: 6/8/06 7:06 AM Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest Yes. In my opinion, her wording is deliberately ambiguous. David At 11:24 PM 6/7/2006, Bret Fausett wrote: >are you suggesting that she has other engagements that she >hasn't disclosed?

1 0

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest
by Bret Fausett June 8, 2006

June 8, 2006

Marilyn? Do your clients with ICANN-related interests extend past AT&T and Overstock? -----Original Message----- From: "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org> To: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro>; "'Marilyn Cade'" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: "'John Jeffrey'" <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>; "'Bruce Tonkin'" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; council(a)gnso.icann.org Sent: 6/8/06 7:06 AM Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest Yes. In my opinion, her wording is deliberately ambiguous. David At 11:24 PM 6/7/2006, Bret Fausett wrote: >are you suggesting that she has other engagements that she >hasn't disclosed?

1 0

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest
by Bret Fausett June 8, 2006

June 8, 2006

I read Marilyn's statement below as a fairly clear statement of interest. She is consulting with/representing Overstock and AT&T with regard to their desires to obtain single letter domains. Perhaps I'm being obtuse, David, but what more are you seeking? Are you asking her for more details on these engagements or are you suggesting that she has other engagements that she hasn't disclosed? Bret >In Brussels, I named my clients related to the single letter names in >our discussion, and again, yesterday, on the call I stated that the >clients for the area of reserved names were AT&T and Overstock.com. As >it turns out, AT&T is not interested in single letters, but "symbols". >Not to bore everyone here but symbols have different technological >issues than single letters and thus it is very unlikely that there >would be any discussion feasible of releasing symbols of any nature. > >I'm not sure if you are asking if I am trying to represent clients, but >without compensation, with the idea that they pay me for "outcomes". If >that is the question, then no. Not the case.

1 0

RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest
by Marilyn Cade June 7, 2006

June 7, 2006

Dear David, Thank you for raising your concern openly so that it can be responded to and address any concerns or questions that may exist on the part of any TF member, or members of the ICANN community. In Brussels, I named my clients related to the single letter names in our discussion, and again, yesterday, on the call I stated that the clients for the area of reserved names were AT&T and Overstock.com. As it turns out, AT&T is not interested in single letters, but "symbols". Not to bore everyone here but symbols have different technological issues than single letters and thus it is very unlikely that there would be any discussion feasible of releasing symbols of any nature. I'm not sure if you are asking if I am trying to represent clients, but without compensation, with the idea that they pay me for "outcomes". If that is the question, then no. Not the case. Let me address statements of interest, however. I agree with David that the statements are not often easy to read for implications on conflicts, when they only mention the name of a company, or suggest that the only issue is whether there is a financial relationship to a registry or registrar. Let me support David's call for all TF members to examine their statements and think about whether their interests are clearly identified. AS I think everyone knows, the Council and its TFs are guided by policies that also affect the Board of Directors. Thanks again, David, for asking so that this can be addressed. Best Regards, Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of David W. Maher Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:52 AM To: pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Statements of Interest In yesterday's teleconf, I again raised the issue of Marilyn Cade's failure to comply with the requirements for filing a statement of interest in order to participate in this PDP. The statements of interest on file are available at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/statements-of-interest-pdp-feb06- apr.html Marilyn's statement includes the following: "The clients of my business are concerned about the security and stability 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 that is, o publicly could be active at ICANN. At present, two clients that I advise have an interest in reserved names in gTLDs. I have disclosed that to the gNSO Council, and to the Business Constituency and in public statements in the ICANN's public forum and to the ICANN senior staff." This is not an adequate disclosure. It is clearly inconsistent with the extent of disclosure made by other participants. The fact that disclosure may have been made in other fora does not excuse the failure to disclose the identity of these clients to this PDP. We are entitled to know who is paying Marilyn to take positions on the issues in this PDP. We are also entitled to know what arrangements she may have for compensation contingent on the outcome of this PDP, even if there is not currently a client relationship. David W. Maher Senior Vice President - Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 1775 Wiehle Ave, #102A Reston, VA 20190 USA (v) +1-312-876-8055 (f) +1-312-876-7934 http://www.pir.org

1 0

Marrakech meetings
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 6, 2006

June 6, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: [gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, I know that many are waiting for me to send out a schedule so that you can plan your days in Marrakech, however ICANN is considering some important changes in the details of the Marrakesh meeting schedule http://www.icann.org/meetings/marrakech/ which may affect the details of the GNSO related meeting times. A firmer schedule will be appearing towards the end of the week but in the mean time please note the following dates and times: Meetings will start on Saturday 24 JUNE 2006. 1. PDP Feb 06 task force, with Maureen Cubberley in the chair will meet on 24 June from 14:00 to 18:00, in the GNSO working room. 2. WHOIS task force will be able to meet on 24 June from 17:00 to 18:30, in the GNSO working room, if there are enough task force members present. Meetings will end after the ICANN Board meeting on Friday, 30 June 2006 The GNSO related meetings to be scheduled during that period of time include: 1. GNSO Council preparatory session, which will include preparation for the joint GNSO-CAC meeting and the GNSO review etc. 2. Further work on the PDP Feb06 task force 3. Further work on the WHOIS task force 4. PDP Dec O5 new gTLD committee 5. IDN GNSO working group of volunteers http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02520.html 6. IDN joint GNSO/ccNSO task force On Monday, 26 June 2006, at 10:30 to 12:30 there will be a joint GNSO Council - GAC meeting, open to all task forces, all constituency members interested and the ALAC liaison, as observers. The GAC will announce later in the week the names of the speakers. ICANN is planning workshops on the following topics: 1. DNSSEC 2. Internet Governance 3. IDNs 4. an information session on changes in the domain name markets. A full schedule and lots of shaking to get the right mixture! Thank you for your patience, Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 5, 2006

June 5, 2006

[To council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The response to date for the call for volunteers for the GNSO working group is: The registrar members so far are: - Bruce Tonkin, Melbourne IT - Werner Staub, CORE (registrar) and .cat - Yoav Keren, Domain The Net Technologies (registrar) - Paul Diaz, Network Solutions Sophia Bekele, CBS International, and Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council Avri Doria, Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council Ram Mohan, Afilias (operator for .info, .org, .mobi, and .in) Alistair Dixon, Telstra Clear Ltd., and CBUC representative to the GNSO Council + other CBUC participants not yet named. Mawaki Chango, NCUC representative to the GNSO Council Thank you very much, Kind regards. Glen Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to: (1) review the Issues Report, (2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work, (3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO, (4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

The Challenges of a representational Board
by Bruce Tonkin June 5, 2006

June 5, 2006

Hello All, While we consider the election of a person to the ICANN Board and also consider how to improve our own processes through the GNSO review, it is worth reflecting on some of the weaknesses and strengths of the ICANN governance model. This representational model applies effectively to both the ICANN Board and the GNSO Council. There was a good article on this topic by Lynn Ralph and Alan Cameron in the June 2006 issue of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) magazine. See below for some extracts from the article. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Failings ======== "What are the typical failings of representative boards? First and perhaps most important, is a lack of critical skills and experience, including in many cases, experience as directors. Removing the ability to consider composition of the board from an organisational perspective will inevitably produce gaps, and perhaps the most dangerous one of these is lack of an effective, independent chairman. Second, and also quite common, is the tension between the directors' obligations to the company and their commitments to at least some of the goals of the constituency. This often exhibits itself in conflicts between the need for a board to operate in confidence and demands from constituencies for reporting back. Conflict of interest management is critical here, as inevitably all directors appointed by a constituency have some degree of conflict. The distinction between delegates, those appointed to ascertain and act on the instructions of the constituency, and representatives, those appointed to an office to make up their own mind on issues in the interest of the organisation, is not well understood. Third, and often as a direct result of these boards being quite large, are poor group dynamics - factionalism, caucusing, or defending prior positions as opposed to productive discussion. Even messier are governing bodies which have split into two (or more) due to the large number of constituencies, resulting in the confusion of roles and responsibilities. Fourth, is a common confusion around the respective accountabilities of the board and management, as current customers/users often lack the ability to see the appropriate boundaries to their role. Simple enthusiasm for a cause can make representative directors more likely to assume hands-on roles and inevitably slide into micro-management. Finally, constituencies can fail to monitor the performance of their appointee once the appointment has been made, resulting in reduced individual accountability." Strengths ========= "Firstly, representative boards can have a number of important strengths. Where directors are personally connected to the industry, cause or activity, they typically are enthusiastic and committed contributors. On boards where the representatives come from a range of constituencies, a healthy diversity of views and experience is certainly possible. Having directors who are respected within their constituencies can provide credibility and ownership amongst stakeholders, Such directors should be more likely to be able to predict whether management strategies and proposals will be acceptable to stakeholders." "There are a number other strategies which can be employed to counter-balance the structurally generated weaknesses of representative boards. First, a strong strategic framework with clearly articulated targets and outcomes will provide the framework for decision-making, without which the risk of falling back on special interests emerges. Secondly, setting out clear board operating protocols - by that we mean not just the standard role of the board vs. management, but also those informal, usually unspoken, rules of engagement about "how we do things here" that make a board work or otherwise. In this category, we would put issues around solidarity, confidentiality, and the authority of the chair. Also included in this should be conscious strategies to improve group dynamics. Thirdly, extensive director induction should be introduced to accelerate effectiveness, whether this means industry training or general director education. Finally, accountability mechanisms should be implemented to ensure well meaning but underperforming directors either lift their game and/or are managed off; formal, independent board and individual director reviews play a critical role here.

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues
by Bruce Tonkin June 5, 2006

June 5, 2006

Hello Mawaki, > And supposedly, we > are now volunteering for the latter, to represent the GNSO, > am I correct? Or are we still to form the first WG whose size > is formally unknown to date? We are still forming the first working group. > > BTW, a suggestion: could we please have at the GNSO's front > page, a link to all the temporary or non statutorial groups - > working groups, TFs, (advisory) committees, focus groups, etc. > etc. I must confess I'm incapabable to tell how many of those > we have running currently (even after consulting the web > site), and it's embarrassing. > Good idea. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues
by Bruce Tonkin June 5, 2006

June 5, 2006

Hello Marilyn, Lets first get together the list of people that want to be part of the GNSO working group. Once that group has met and determined an appropriate set of next steps, then that group can decide who will meet with the ccNSO team. The meeting with the ccNSO is more likely to be a face-to-face meeting in Marrakesh, and will probably be on the weekend (24/25 June) - so the number of people available for such a meeting may be constrained. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues
by Bruce Tonkin June 5, 2006

June 5, 2006

Hello Glen, The registrar members so far are: - Bruce Tonkin, Melbourne IT - Werner Staub, CORE (registrar) and .cat - Yoav Keren, Domain The Net Technologies (registrar) - Paul Diaz, Network Solutions I have also heard from: Sophia Bekele, CBS International, and Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council Ram Mohan, Afilias (operator for .info, .org, .mobi, and .in) Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 3, 2006

June 3, 2006

[To council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note the following motion set out below was resolved at the GNSO Council meeting on 18 May 2006. (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: To date there has only been one response. Would you please consider this call for volunteers and let me know as soon as possible. Thank you very much, Kind regards. Glen Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to: (1) review the Issues Report, (2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work, (3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO, (4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 6

SHINKURO for Marrakesh GNSO Council in Marrakesh
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 2, 2006

June 2, 2006

Dear Council Members, Liz Williams will set up a SHINKURO room for the GNSO Council during the Marrakesh meetings so please accept the invitations to join that you will receive. Reminder: 1. Download the Shinkuro software for your computer that you will be using at the meeting -- www.shinkuro.com -- it is critical for this to happen as the Shinkuro security algorithm needs to identify each client device. 2. Note down your Shinkuro nickname. 3. Send that name to Glen (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) -- DO NOT SEND IT TO THE PUBLIC LISTS 4. Liz will then "invite" you to join GNSO Marrakesh meeting group. 5. You will then see others in the group and you will also see files that will be used for the meetings -- such as the agenda, logistics, remote teleconference dial up numbers, powerpoint presentations and documents. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 18 May 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 2, 2006

June 2, 2006

[To council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 18 May 2006. Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ............................................................................ 18 May 2006 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries June Seo - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Robin Gross - NCUC. - absent - apologies Norbert Klein - NCUC. Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 18 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison - absent Quorum present at 14:07 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Approval of agenda Item 1: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 14 March 2006 and 12 April 2006 Ken Stubbs, seconded by Maureen Cubberley, moved the adoption of both minutes. Motion approved. Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 14 March 2006 and 12 April 2006 were adopted. Item 2: Update any statements of interest No update on any statements of interest was noted Item 3: WHOIS task force membership Proposed motion 1: The GNSO Council appoints Jordyn Buchanan as a non-voting outside adviser to the WHOIS Task force under Annex A, Section 5(a) of the ICANN bylaws. Jordyn is able to participate fully as a member of the task force and is able to act in the role of chair if so elected by the task force. A change in Jordyn Buchanan's employment required the GNSO Council to formally approve a motion appointing him to the WHOIS task force. Bruce Tonkin seconded by Lucy Nichols and Ken Stubbs proposed: The GNSO Council appoints Jordyn Buchanan as a non-voting outside adviser to the WHOIS Task force under Annex A, Section 5(a) of the ICANN force and is able to act in the role of chair if so elected by the task force. Council, by voice vote, unanimously accepted the motion. Decision 2: The GNSO Council appoints Jordyn Buchanan as a non-voting outside adviser to the WHOIS Task force under Annex A, Section 5(a) of the ICANN force and is able to act in the role of chair if so elected by the task force. Proposed motion 2: "The GNSO Council appoints Avri Doria as a voting outside adviser to the WHOIS task force under Annex A, Section 5(a) of the ICANN bylaws. Avri is able to participate fully as a member of the task force and is able to act in the role of chair if so elected by the task force. The motion differed from the proposed motion 1 above as it deals with the appointment of a Council member appointed by the nominating committee. Previously, Amadeu Abril l Abril, a Nominating Committee appointee to the Council was appointed as an outsider to the WHOIS task force 2. Following a Council resolution, the Feb06 task force was created and 3 Nominating Committee appointees were appointed, one being elected as the task force Chair. Since the formation of the current WHOIS task force, Avri Doria has been appointed by the Nominating Committee to the GNSO Council and has expressed interest in joining the WHOIS task force. Marilyn Cade wished to consider the resolution without prejudice to the conclusion of the work on the GNSO Rules of Procedure. Bruce Tonkin referred to the old Names Council Rules of Procedure "10.10 Voting From time to time progress will be advanced by holding straw polls to determine the majority view. A motion to approve a draft proposal or report (or any section thereof) may be made by any member of the Working Group. Once seconded and approved by the WG Chair, such motion shall be put to a vote of the Working Group members. In such an event, the WG Chair shall poll the Working Group members. Motions that receive a majority of votes cast shall be deemed approved. Consensus. Because of the diverse nature of open working groups the results of any vote will be taken solely to assist with progress within the group. A majority vote of a working group should be described as a majority vote of a working group. No claim to DNSO stakeholder consensus should be attributed to such a vote." Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Maureen Cubberley, proposed: The GNSO Council appoints Avri Doria as a voting outside adviser to the WHOIS task force under Annex A, Section 5(a) of the ICANN bylaws. Avri is able to participate fully as a member of the task force and is able to act in the role of chair if so elected by the task force. Council voted to accept the motion. One abstention from Avri Doria. Decision 3: The GNSO Council appoints Avri Doria as a voting outside adviser to the WHOIS task force under Annex A, Section 5(a) of the ICANN bylaws. Avri is able to participate fully as a member of the task force and is able to act in the role of chair if so elected by the task force. Item 4: Update on WHOIS task force activities Olof Nordling reported that the two motions above were indirectly the result of progress in the task force. There were three remaining terms of reference to be completed: 2) Define the purpose of the Registered Name Holder, technical, and administrative contacts, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS, and the purpose for which the data was collected. Use the relevant definitions from Exhibit C of the Transfers Task force report as a starting point (3) Determine what data collected should be available for public access in the context of the purpose of WHOIS. Determine how to access data that is not available for public access. (4) Determine how to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate WHOIS data, and the process for investigating and correcting inaccurate data. The task force agreed to use formulation 1 The GNSO Council recommends that the WHOIS task force use the following definition: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed on terms of reference (2), (3), and (4) (see: http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html ) for mapping the purpose of the data elements, and that input could be drawn from a proposal called Operational Point of Contact (oPOC). Some activity on the mailing list has focused on how to map the appropriateness of the data elements in the further work. Item 4: IDN issues report - agree next steps - e.g relating to the formation of a working group to review the issues and develop a terms of reference for a new PDP Olof Nordling reported that the current Issues Report was a combination of brainstorming sessions, reports in Wellington, and the Staff discussion paper. Bruce Tonkin recommended that the GNSO form its own internal working group to determine the GNSO view of the IDN issues report, and then have three representatives from the GNSO working group meet with the three representatives from the ccNSO to coordinate a shared vision of the priority issues to address and identify the next steps (e.g whether to work on a single PDP, or conduct the work as two separate PDPs). The GNSO working group would report back to the GNSO Council for approving any recommendation for a PDP process. The timeline of the process would be for the internal GNSO working group to meet in June 2006 to discuss the issues report, and then arrange a meeting with the three ccNSO reps in Marrakech with the objective of having recommendations for the GNSO and ccNSO Councils in July 2006. Once the recommendations are made to the Councils, the working group would be disbanded. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Sophia Bekele, proposed a motion: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to: (1) review the Issues Report, (2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work, (3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO, (4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to: (1) review the Issues Report, (2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work, (3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO, (4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006. Item 5: Update on PDP-Feb06 - Contractual conditions for existing gTLDs Dr Liz Williams reported that there would be a Preliminary task force report on PDP-Feb06 - Contractual conditions for existing gTLDs released a week before the proposed task force meeting on 6 June 2006. The further outstanding item would be allocating time working time at the Marrakesh meeting in June 2006. Item 6: Update on PDP-Dec05 - new gTLDs Dr Liz Williams reported that the input received during the Brussels meeting would be incorporated into the next version of the Initial Report which is intended to be distributed prior to the Marrakesh meeting and a new gTLDs committee meeting on 15 June 2006. The report would provide a briefing document for the GAC, the ICANN Board and the ccNSO. It was agreed that as the work progressed, common issues in the two current policy development processes, Dec05 and Feb06, would be determined, input on the two PDPs combined in an effort to reach consistent recommendations. Item 7: Update on GNSO meeting procedures Dr. Liz Williams reported that a working group, consisting of Philip Sheppard, Kiyoshi Tsuru and Dan Halloran were drafting the Meeting Procedures. Item 8: Update on GNSO review Dr Liz Williams reported that at the June Council meeting there would be more definition on the draft report and the intention was to schedule a 2 hour open briefing session in Marrakesh for the Council and the constituencies to discuss the report. The ICANN Board, as recipients of the report, would have a separate session with the GNSO Review team. Item 9: Update on planning for Morocco meeting - hotel arrangements, use of weekend prior to the meeting. Bruce Tonkin suggested that Constituency day consist of more joint meetings among the constituencies on common topics such as the GNSO Review where the ICANN Board could be involved. Marilyn Cade suggested that the GNSO Public Forum should focus on the PDP Feb05 in a way that the ICANN Board and GAC members could be encouraged to participate in the audience. It was agreed that the program committee, Marilyn Cade, Ken Stubbs, Bruce Tonkin and Glen, would convey the Council wishes to Diane Schroeder. Philip Sheppard, a candidate for ICANN Board seat number 14, left the call at 14:00 UTC. Item 10: Process and timing of next steps for the GNSO election. Bruce Tonkin reminded Council that the ICANN bylaws state: Article lV BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 4. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 2. No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board. If such a person accepts a nomination to be considered for selection by the Supporting Organization Council to be a Director, the person shall not, following such nomination, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, the Supporting Organization Council relating to the selection of Directors by the Council, until the Council has selected the full complement of Directors it is responsible for selecting. In the event that a person serving in any capacity on a Supporting Organization Council accepts a nomination to be considered for selection as a Director, the constituency group or other group or entity that selected the person may select a replacement for purposes of the Council's selection process. The Commercial and Business Users constituency would replace Philip Sheppard temporarily on the GNSO Council and he would be removed from the Council mailing list. It was agreed that the candidates would be interviewed by Council, the Executive Committees of the constituencies and the ALAC and GAC liaisons. Since there were 3 candidates standing for the ICANN Board seat number 14, Council agreed to proceed with an electronic ballot vote. Council would be notified of the Election Procedures to be followed. Bruce Tonkin thanked the Council members for their participation. The meeting ended: 14:10 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference 8 June 2006 at 12:00 UTC see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] CANCEL - Propose cancelling GNSO Council meeting on 8 June 2006
by Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) June 2, 2006

June 2, 2006

Makes good sense to me too. I agree. Maureen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 4:45 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] CANCEL - Propose cancelling GNSO Council meeting on 8 June 2006 This makes good sense to me. Ken Stubbs Bruce Tonkin wrote: > Hello All, > > I propose cancelling the scheduled GNSO Council meeting on 8 June 2006. > > We have had two conference calls this week to interview the Board > candidates, and I am aware that constituencies have also been holding > conference calls to interview the Board candidates. > > Next week there is a WHOIS task force as well as a PDP-Feb06 task force > call. > > Given that there are no documents to review at this time or major > decisions to be made, I see no reason to hold a full Council call on 8 > June 2006. > > With respect to scheduling for the Morocco meetings - this will continue > to happen in the background, and the staff will keep the Council > informed as the schedule evolves. The GNSO Secretariat will continue > to take any input from Council members. > > As the election process progresses I will look at scheduling a Council > call to affirm any winning candidate, and we can cover off any other > issues at that time. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > >

1 0

CANCEL - Propose cancelling GNSO Council meeting on 8 June 2006
by Bruce Tonkin June 2, 2006

June 2, 2006

Hello All, I propose cancelling the scheduled GNSO Council meeting on 8 June 2006. We have had two conference calls this week to interview the Board candidates, and I am aware that constituencies have also been holding conference calls to interview the Board candidates. Next week there is a WHOIS task force as well as a PDP-Feb06 task force call. Given that there are no documents to review at this time or major decisions to be made, I see no reason to hold a full Council call on 8 June 2006. With respect to scheduling for the Morocco meetings - this will continue to happen in the background, and the staff will keep the Council informed as the schedule evolves. The GNSO Secretariat will continue to take any input from Council members. As the election process progresses I will look at scheduling a Council call to affirm any winning candidate, and we can cover off any other issues at that time. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

MP3 recordings: ICANN Board Candidate Interviews
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 1, 2006

June 1, 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 recordings of the Interviews with the 3 candidates for the ICANN Board seat # 14, Rita Rodin, Michael Geist and Philip Sheppard. The GNSO Council members, constituency executive committee members and the ALAC and GAC liaisons were invited to participate on the calls. http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Interv-Rodin-20060530.mp3 http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Interv-Geist-Sheppard-20060601.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/elections/index.html Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Board seat
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com June 1, 2006

June 1, 2006

Fellow Councillors Most you know Alick Wilson from his time on the council. Although no longer a member of council Alick maintains a key interest and it appears timely to share his thoughts below, particularly with the demands and expectations of the GNSO increasing at a fast pace due to the heavy work program we are facing. Tony -----Original Message----- From: Alick Wilson [mailto:alick.wilson@xendra.co.nz] Sent: 01 June 2006 06:26 To: Marilyn Cade; Holmes,AR,Tony,CXM R Subject: Board seat As you know, while I am no longer a member of GNSO Council, I have an ongoing interest in GNSO and ICANN. As I told the LSE team at some length and with numerous examples, many of the things about GNSO that need fixing are beyond the authority of GNSO Council to fix; they require authority from the Board and/or action by the staff. I suggest that the candidates be asked their position on this and whether they intend to press for Board and staff action. I suggest that the GNSO Board appointee needs to be someone who has the commitment, drive and ability to influence change within ICANN, for the benefit of ICANN generally and specifically, to improve the way GNSO operates. I suggest candidates be asked about their commitment and ability to influence change, and what changes they think are required. Please feel free to post this to Council list. Cheers, Alick

1 0