November 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

IDN mailing list
by Greg Ruth 03 Dec '07

03 Dec '07

It appears that the IDN WG mailing list is still operative. I propose that this be the basis for a 6-month trial of an IDN discussion list. As Council chair, Avri is willing to monitor the list during the trial period. I would envision that ICANN would publicly announce the "creation" of this list (probably with a new name), describing its purpose and rules, and explaining how to subscribe. Please put this on the agenda to be discussed at the next meeting. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

5 5

FW: [REGYCON] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
by Gomes, Chuck 03 Dec '07

03 Dec '07

Olof, Here is David's response to your query. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM] On Behalf Of David W. Maher Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:39 AM To: REGYCON-L(a)NIC.MUSEUM Subject: [REGYCON] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP Olof: Chuck Gomes asked me to reply to your question: about the inner meaning of what you call the "treaty route". Would that imply a) all IGOs do like the Red Cross and nail the name protection in their respective treaties or b) some overarching treaty for all IGOs clarifying name protection for them all, a kind of "Paris Convention +" or c) something else? The answer is all of the above. The "treaty route" is the way nations to protect their national interests and the jurisdiction of their courts. David 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 <http://www.pir.org/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 2

Council memberJob description
by Avri Doria 01 Dec '07

01 Dec '07

Hi, Just wanted to note that tomorrow was the deadline for any edits to the proposed job description before council decides to approve it, or not at the 6 Dec meeting. The version I sent out on 22 Nov received one comment which has been fixed in he following: Removed words "Most recently" from > “Most recently ICANN also provides staff support for policy > development.” T If you have any further comment or requested edits, please let me know before end of day tomorrow. thanks a.

1 1

Nominations update: Avri Doria's nomination seconded and accepted
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

Dear Councillors, This is a status update of the nominations for the position of GNSO Council chair which are open until Thursday, 6 December 2007 at 23:00 UTC. Avri Doria has been duly nominated by Norbert Klein, a NCUC representative, and has accepted the nomination, as a candidate for the position of GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February to 31 January 2009. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04166.html Jordi Iparraguirre, a gTLD Registry constituency representative, has seconded the nomination. Kind regards. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council response on the BCG Report on the GNSO Improvements posted to public comments forum
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Councillors, GNSO Council response on the BCG Report on the GNSO Improvements, that was agreed to by the GNSO Council without objection, has been posted to the public comment forum. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements/msg00023.html Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
by Rosette, Kristina 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

All, Attached please find the IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP, which was approved by the IPC at its meeting this morning. Attached also for reference is a redline against the IGO DRP that was contained in the 28 September 2007 staff report. The IPC believes that its proposed revised IGO DRP remedies the aspects of the original IGO DRP that were previously identified as being of concern. The IPC proposed revised IGO DRP does not address - and was not intended to address - the process by which an IGO DRP would become applicable to existing gTLDs. Once (or if) it does become applicable to existing gTLDs, the proposed changes reflect a mechanism that is believed to treat existing gTLD registrants fairly. Kristina <<11282007 IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP.DOC>> <<Redline IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP against Original.DOC>>

5 12

REMINDER: CALL FOR NOMINATIONS for GNSO Council Chair 22 Nov - 6 Dec
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, REMINDER: NOMINATIONS for GNSO Council Chair are open till Thursday 6 December 2007 at 23:00 UTC. Time is running out as all nominations should be accepted and seconded by that date. see below: A formal nomination period, for the election of GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2008 until 31 January 2009 is now open for two weeks from Thursday, 22 November 2007 to Thursday, 6 December 2007 ending at 23:00 UTC. All nominations should be seconded and accepted in this period. Only GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second nominations. Please note the revised date for the term of office, 1 February 2008 until 31 January 2009. The previous announcement, 'till the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in 2008' was a mistake on my part and my apologies. Please send all nominations and seconds to: gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org Nominations and seconds will be acknowledged and posted to the council list. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council report to the Board on WHOIS
by liz.gasster 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

All, Attached for your reference please find the final GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board on recent GNSO Council activities on WHOIS. The Report was forwarded to the Board last week - apologies for the short delay in distribution. It will also be posted on the GNSO Council web site and the WHOIS policy development page. Liz Gasster Senior Policy Counselor ICANN policy(a)icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
by Tim Ruiz 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

> Should I conclude that you were not impressed > with any of this experience? I never said that. I said I am not impressed with the WG experience so far. As you said, some of the examples had *elements* that should be useful But in general, I don't think WGs have worked well except for non-controversial issues. There are also examples of TFs that have worked well, and there are certainly elements from them that we should consider, as well as the committee of the whole approach. What the BGC is calling for is a committment to WGs. In my opinion it is premature to make such a committment. There is no evidence that I have seen that indicates WGs are any better than TFs. > I challenge you to look carefully at the task > force model in the current PDP in the Bylaws. > It is very narrowly defined and restrictive > and has much less flexibility than anything we > have done along the lines of a WG. I know it very well, and have participated on a number of TFs. Quite honestly, I like the TF model and think there are very good reasons for it's narrow definition. When it has failed, as in the Whois TF(s), it had little to do with the TF model. The root cause is usually that there simply is no consensus. What I hope we don't do is come up with something that forces or fakes a consensus when there isn't one. So again, I support continued use of WGs but I don't support committing to them as *thee* only mechanism. That said, I think Philip's latest draft puts it very well. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 9:36 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, Please see my comments below. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:45 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform > > Chuck, it would be qualified support at best. I am not > convinced of the WG model yet. We have very little experience > with it as a primary policy development mechanism, and what > experience we do have I am not that impressed with. So the > proof is in the eating of the pudding. CG: What about the experience we had with the Introduction of New gTLDs Committee that lasted for about 20 months? What about the GNSO IDN WG? What about the Reserved Names WG? All of these incorporated useful elements of working groups. Should I conclude that you were not impressed with any of this experience? I am fully aware of the difficulties with the Whois WG and I think we can learn from that to design improvements into the WG approach, but we also should recognize that no model, WG model or any other, will be a panacea. Hence the need for flexibility. > > We need to define how WGs should be structured and operate > and then try it out, and refine as necessary. Until we know > that WGs can be consistently effective I don't see them as > any better, or worse, than the Task Force model. Totally agree that it needs to be defined. That is the task in front of us, "to define how WGs should be structured and operate". As long as we do that thoroughly and carefully, we have the opportunity to improve the process. That can and should include the positive elements of successful working groups and task forces of the past and it definitely should include flexibility as I think all of us agree. Moreover, it should include ongoing review and improvement as we learn. I challenge you to look carefully at the task force model in the current PDP in the Bylaws. It is very narrowly defined and restrictive and has much less flexibility than anything we have done along the lines of a WG. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 3:31 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Please translate Tim. Where are you at on this one? > Support? Partial Support? Qualidfied Support? Other? > > Chuck Gomes > > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or > entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information > that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure > under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or > disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, please notify sender immediately and > destroy/delete the original transmission." > > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:04 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform > > > > I'm not sure I am ready to jump on to the unanimous bandwagon on this > one. Conferring with my Constituency peers. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 1:35 pm > To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > So we are sayiing "we unanimously partially support the > recommendation"? > Sounds a little confusing to me. At the same time, note that in my > response to Philip just sent a couple minutes ago, I suggested > "Qualified Support". I think it may be an improvement to say "we > unanimously support a recommendation with qualifications". > > Chuck Gomes > > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly > prohibited. If > you have received this message in error, please notify sender > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:11 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform > > > > Hi, > > I thought that the partial support meant that we, as a group, had > reservations that were expressed in the included statements. > > > In the preface we say the the level os support an unanimous. > So partial > support does not refer to the level of support in the council but > rather to the degree to which we unanimously support the > recommendation > as written in the BWG draft. > > > a. > > > > > > On 26 nov 2007, at 15.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Thanks again Philip. This is looking very good in my opinion, but I > still have a four areas of concern. > > 3. All policy is developed in working groups in place of task > forces of > Council. > > I still don't understand what positive elements in the current task > force model would be excluded in a working group model. I would > appreciate some explanation here. For the moment at least, I think we > should say "Support", not "Partial Support". I have no problem > emphasizing the need to include flexibility in the WG model but do not > support the suggestion to include 'task forces'. > > 3.2 Steps to improve effectiveness/ efficiency: proposals for running > working groups. > > Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support". > > 4.1b Amend the bylaws to clarify the limited set of > "consensus policies" > upon which the GNSO may make change. > > I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support". > > 5.2 Steps to improve effectiveness. The monitoring / oversight role of > Council. > > > Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support". > > > Chuck Gomes > > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly > prohibited. If > you have received this message in error, please notify sender > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM > To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform > > > > Thank you very much Philip for the very quick turn-around on this and > for a job very well done. I inserted my comments in the attached > document. > > Chuck Gomes > > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly > prohibited. If > you have received this message in error, please notify sender > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 AM > To: 'Council GNSO' > Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform > > > > As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a > short paper > as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may > be supportable by Council as a whole. > Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd > better get > a move on. > > Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking: > - improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility, > - improvements in communications, > - improvements in outreach > - greater support for constituencies. > > I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have > differing views. > > On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we > mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our > hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us > would be too > inflexible. > > I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your > first comments > please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final > version. > Comments can be as simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals > to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word > of explanation would be good to share. > > > > Philip > > > > > >

2 1

REMINDER: Domain tasting PDP Constituency Statements due 5 December 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

REMINDER Domain tasting PDP Constituency Statements are due on 5 December 2007. Please send these to Olof Nordling who is the staff support on this issue. Please let me know if you have any questions or any problems meeting this deadline. Thank you. Kind regards. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0