November 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Council comments on GNSO reform v2
by Philip Sheppard 26 Nov '07

26 Nov '07

Council comments on GNSO reform. Thank you for comments received on the first draft. As promised I attach a proposed version two. This captures I hope all the comments received some of which overlapped but went in the same direction. The attached version shows in yellow highlight the changes from v1. Ideally we can all support this version which can then be submitted on say Nov 29 (in a clean version) to meet the Nov 30 deadline. On process, I'd be happy to do a clean version on Nov 29 and pass that on to Glen to submit on behalf of Council. Philip

1 0

Avri Doria accepts nomination
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 25 Nov '07

25 Nov '07

Dear Councillors, 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 the end of the ICANN Annual meeting in 2008. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04166.html Kind regards. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Preliminary Report for the 20 November 2007 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 24 Nov '07

24 Nov '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, The Preliminary Report for the 20 November 2007 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors may be viewed and read at: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-20nov07.htm Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board during its next Board Meeting 23 November 2007 ICANN has posted to its website a Preliminary Report of the Board meeting held on 20 November 2007. The Board will consider the Preliminary Report in adopting formal Minutes at its next the Board meeting scheduled for 18 December 2007. ICANN's Board meets regularly (approximately once per month). The Board is committed to being as transparent and accountable as possible. As soon as possible following each meeting, ICANN staff posts a preliminary report of the meeting. The report outlines detailed discussion from the board meeting and demonstrates how decisions are reached. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RESEND: RE: [council] Updated Job Description for discussion
by Alan Greenberg 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

I sent this out about 5 hours ago, but it has not made it back to me. Alan >Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:49:22 -0500 >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: RE: [council] Updated Job Description for discussion > >I support all of Chucks comments, although one conditionally. > >>CG: I suggest that each year we should identify specific skills from the >>above list that are of highest priority for us for the timeframe >>involved. > >Although I support highlighting the skills that may be most needed, >I think the overall statement is too highly weighted on "skills". >Less well defined qualities such as perspective may be of value, and >we should give the NomCom leeway in selecting people who can help >the GNSO. As currently stated, having one of the listed of >highlighted skills is mandatory for selection. > >Lastly, I would adjust the "at least 20 hours per month" to reflect >3 ICANN meetings and possible other face-to-face meetings. On a >personal note, never having completed my speed-reading course, 20 >hours is way low at times when we are hit with large documents to review. > >Alan > >At 20/11/2007 10:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >>Thanks for doing this Avri. Very well done. I have a few questions and >>comments that are integrated into your updated job description below. >>Note that I left minor editorial changes to be done later. >> >>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: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >> > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:37 PM >> > To: Council GNSO >> > Subject: [council] Updated Job Description for discussion >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I integrated the suggestions made by Chuck and Philip and >> > tried to smooth the text somewhat. >> > I also added some ideas of my own - notably the section on >> > the role of the Nomcom appointee. >> > Changes are in {}. >> > >> > a. >> > >> > -------------- >> > >> > GNSO Council >> > Position: GNSO Council >> > >> > Number of Seats: 1 >> > Start of Term: Conclusion of Annual Meeting 2008 End of Term: >> > Conclusion of Annual Meeting 2010 >> > >> > The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is a policy- >> > development body responsible for developing and recommending >> > to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic >> > top-level domains. The GNSO consists of various >> > Constituencies representing defined groups of stakeholders >> > and a GNSO Council, responsible for managing the policy >> > development and administrative processes of the GNSO. The >> > GNSO Constituencies choose the majority of the Council >> > members; Nominating Committee chooses three Council members >> > with staggered terms. The GNSO also includes a liaison from >> > the ALAC and the Governmental Advisory Committee. Liaison >> > activities from the ASO and ccNSO are under development. >> > >> > GNSO Council Members receive no compensation for their >> > services as GNSO Council Members. ICANN provides >> > administrative and operational support necessary for the GNSO >> > to carry out its responsibilities through the GNSO >> > Secretariat. Most recently ICANN also provides staff support >> > for policy development. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, such >> > support shall not include an obligation for ICANN to fund >> > travel expenses incurred by GNSO participants for travel to >> > any meeting of the GNSO or for any other purpose. However, >> > ICANN has customarily furnished travel expenses for >> > Nominating Committee appointed Council members to ICANN >> > meetings. This custom is planned to continue, but is subject >> > to the Bylaw statement. [Bylaws Article X, Section 4, see >> > http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-4] >> > >> > Nominating Committee will use the Criteria for Selection of >> > ICANN Directors (see above) in choosing Selected Nominees for >> > the GNSO Council. GNSO Council members are expected to >> > support the ICANN mission and the implementation of ICANN's >> > Core Values. >> > >> > {Role of the Nomcom Appointee. >> > >> > As discussed above the majority of the councillors are >> > appointed by the constituencies and represent those >> > constituencies in the council. Nomcom appointees, on the >> > other hand, are not the representatives of any specific >> > group, though they may choose to represent the interests of >> > groups that are not currently represented in council. Most >> > importantly nomcom appointees should be people chosen from >> > outside ICANN who bring a fresh perspective into the council >> > and who accept the responsibility to do their best to support >> > ICANN in its mission and core values.} >> >>CG: What is meant by "outside ICANN"? I think we should be more >>specific here so that we do not eliminate candidates who have been >>active in ICANN, a quality that seems desirable. I am not suggesting >>that candidates must have been active in ICANN, but I am suggesting that >>candidates who have been active not be eliminated. >> >> > >> > >> > {The} Nominating Committee will also take into account the >> > following eligibility factors and additional considerations. >> > >> > GNSO Council Eligibility Factors >> > >> > No person who serves on the Nominating Committee in any >> > capacity is eligible for selection by any means to any >> > position on the Board or any other ICANN body having one or >> > more membership positions that the Nominating Committee is >> > responsible for filling, until the conclusion of an ICANN >> > annual meeting that coincides with, or is after, the >> > conclusion of that person's service on the Nominating Committee. >> > [Bylaws, Article VII, Section 8, see >> > http://www.icann.org/general/ bylaws.htm#VII-8] No more than >> > one officer, director, or employee of any particular >> > corporation or other organization (including its subsidiaries and >> > affiliates) shall serve on the GNSO Council at any given time. >> > [Bylaws, Article X, Section 3(5), see >> > http://www.icann.org/general/ bylaws.htm#X-3.5] Additional >> > Considerations >> > >> > For the GNSO Council position, specific experience related to >> > the scope of the GNSO's work with the Domain Name System >> > would be advantageous. >> > >> > The current composition of the GNSO Council is available here >> > http:// gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml >> > >> > The Bylaws do not state a limit on the number of terms GNSO >> > Council members may serve, although it is possible that term >> > limites may be considered in future. >> > >> > Time Commitment >> > >> > The basic responsibilities of a GNSO Council member would >> > spend at least 20 hours per month on Council related >> > activities, with those chairing or participating in >> > committees or task forces spending at up to 60 hours a month. >> > Task force members and councilors are not compensated for >> > either time or teleconference costs. >> > >> > >> > >> > Additional GNSO criteria: >> > >> > During the Nom Com meeting with GNSO Council at the ICANN >> > meeting in Lisbon, the Council provided the following outline >> > of qualities the NomCom should consider in GNSO candidates: >> > >> > Baseline Criteria for anyone selected as a nomcom appointee: >> > {* Demonstrated experience working effectively in >> > collaborative environments involving diverse interests.} >> > * ability to chair a multi-stakeholder group to reach consensus >> >>CG: Although this is a desirable quality, I am not convinced that every >>Councilor must have chair qualities. It could be very useful to the >>Council to have certain areas of expertise (e.g., IDNs, >>Intergovernmental Knowledge) even if the person may not have chair >>qualities. >> >> > * basic of knowledge of DNS systems and industry structure - >> > registries, registrars >> > {- The goal is not to find technical DNS experts, but a >> > minimal understanding of the DNS is needed to effectively >> > function on the Council. for example something along >> > the lines of "do you know what happens in the DNS >> > when you send an email, or access a webpage". This >> > requires not a precise technical description, but an >> > understanding of the general process of name resolution.} >> > * individual expertise that is not otherwise available on the >> > Council {as represented in the variable criteria below} >> > >> > >> > {Variable Criteria that are useful to the GNSO: >> > Part of the role of Nomcom appointees it fill in gaps in >> > the skill set of the council. >> > Some, but not all, of the skills that are highly useful in >> > the process of GNSO council work >> > are listed below. The gap skills will vary year by year. >> > Knowledge of >> > - International Law >> > - Competition law >> > - Anti-trust law >> > - Public interest >> > - Consumer rights >> > - Human rights >> > - Economics especially market analysis >> > - Intergovernmental expertise >> > - Understanding of the special needs of financial services businesses >> > - IDN expertise} >> > - setting up of dispute and objection processes >> > - enforcement {procedures and processes} >> > - application software development - e.g multi-lingual support >> > - online{ collaborative work and} consensus building >> > technologies - wiki's etc >> > - statistics and survey analysis >> > - project management and document control processes >> >>CG: I suggest that each year we should identify specific skills from the >>above list that are of highest priority for us for the timeframe >>involved. >> >> > >> > {Additionally consideration may be given to Nomcom appointees >> > who can help with the geographical or gender balance on the >> > council as needed.} >> >>CG: I would suggest that we qualify this to say something like the >>following: "Additionally consideration may be given to Nomcom appointees >>who can help with the geographical or gender balance on the council as >>needed, as long as other needed skill sets are also demonstrated. (In >>other words, a condidate should not be nominated solely based on >>geographical or gener balance of the Council.)" >> > >> > >> >

3 4

RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
by Tim Ruiz 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

3 2

RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
by Tim Ruiz 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

Avri, I don't see representation and inclusiveness as separable. Regarding WGs I think that stakeholder representation should be an important measure of inclusiveness, and a critical measure of consensus. I would hate to see the WG process become a gaming mechanism ruled by shear numbers without regard to whether all stakeholder's views have been given equal time and treatment, or have consensus measured simply by numbers without regard to all stakeholder interests. I believe the challenge the Council has as it defines the WG guidelines is to not lose sight of the fact that there are very distinct interest groups affected in various ways, good or bad, by ICANN policy. All of these groups deserve to be included (represented) and the Council should not allow one group to be completely drowned out by the shear numbers of another. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Wed, November 21, 2007 8:26 pm To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, Thanks for getting this out so quickly. A possible addition: While I am not sure that we have consensus on the details of proxy voting, might we want to mention that we do want a consideration of proxy voting with details to be worked out during the transition period? Other points: 3.1 While I agree in principle with this, I am not sure that the general notion of representation is necessarily the criteria I would emphasise. I would prefer to talk about the appropriateness of the process and perhaps mention the possibility that sometimes a small invited team which is representative of the relevant stockholders would be a better choice. 3.2 I tend to think that putting a lot of responsibility on the WG chair is a good thing. Though I also think, as I mentioned in my personal statement to the BGWG-WG, that the Council retains an important management responsibility for these working groups and that in all cases at least one council member should be assigned to act as a representative steward for the WG and should should share the burden with the WG chair(s) with respective responsibilities. I also think we need to design and document some standard guidelines for WGs that all WG chairs and participants can use and that we need to create a process for the council to provide an appeals function for disputes between WG participants and WG chairs. I believe that for rough consensus to work, it must be possible to appeal the consensus call made by a chair. In this case, I see this as a council responsibility. Perhaps a reply like: More thought is needed here, especially on the design of the WG process and on the responsibilities of the council, the chairs and the participants in a WG. Discussions on these issues should be part of the transition process. 4.1b: Again I agree with Supporting this but I do not think that representativeness is the issue here. If I understand the architecture they are proposing, the council is the locus for representation, while the WG is the locus for inclusion. WGs are more inclusive, while the council will remain representative of the stakeholders and their interests. I suggest removing the text on representativeness, but leaving the statement of support. 5.2 I think this is a critical point. I think it is important to emphasise that the council needs to be responsible for more then just process management but is responsible for policy management. While this may not be a legislative function, i am not sure it is that now, it is certainly critical that the council not lose its ability to make policy recommendations and that it not be restricted to just passing on the work of the working groups. At the very least the policy work of many WGs must be coordinated so as to not produce contradictory recommendations. I wonder if we can't add something that says: We think it is important that the policy management role of the council not be abrogated or diminished. thanks again, a. On 21 nov 2007, at 09.03, Philip Sheppard wrote: > 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 <GNSO reply reform proposals 2007v1.doc>

4 4

Call for volunteers
by Avri Doria 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

hi, We need to bring together a few volunteers to work with Liz and me to put together the form that will need to be filled out by those who want to propose a study related to Whois. It would be most useful to have some volunteers who have designed studies and who know what sort of information needs to be obtained in order to design a study and get an rough cost estimate. I do not think we need to restrict membership in this group to council members. thanks a.

1 0

Summary for New gTLDs Workshop at ICANN LA Meeting
by Denise Michel 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

Attached is a summary of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains for GNSO participants' consideration and use at the GNSO's New gTLD Workshop in Los Angeles on Monday, 29 October, 13:00 - 19:00. This document summarizes the recommendations contained in the Report and notes other work under way to facilitate the introduction of new gTLDs in an orderly and transparent way. Where particularly applicable, it also attempts to briefly provide information about various issues considered by the GNSO Committee and the rationale behind the final wording of principles, recommendations and implementation guidelines. (The Report, which was approved by the GNSO Council last month and is being sent to ICANN's Board for consideration, can be found at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>). This document is meant to provide a concise and easy to read summary of the key elements of the Report, and is organized to correspond with the Workshop sessions. GNSO constituency members are encouraged to consider the summary, and the Report, and submit questions in advance that they would like the Workshop panelists to address on the 29th. *Questions should be emailed to <new-gtlds-workshop(a)icann.org> or submitted via the on line comment form found on the Workshop web page at <http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/45>.* Questions will be publicly posted and provided to the Workshop moderator and panelists. As previously noted, GNSO constituencies are encouraged to attend the special, interactive workshop at ICANN's Los Angeles meeting focused on the GNSO Council's final report on the introduction of new gTLDs. The workshop will feature extensive opportunities for audience comments and questions and Council responses. We look forward to seeing you in LA. Regards, Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development denise.michel(a)icann.org

3 3

[Fwd: Thanks]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 21 Nov '07

21 Nov '07

FYI Sujet: Thanks Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:00:48 -0800 (PST) De: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango(a)yahoo.com> Pour :: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dear Glen, Please forward my thanks to ICANN and staff for the gift, which I received on Tuesday, yesterday. Regards, Mawaki -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
by Tim Ruiz 21 Nov '07

21 Nov '07

Thanks Philip. Looks good to me. The final document should make the BGC mindful of the tight timeframe they have put this on. Of course, we will not unnecessarily delay but would like the flexibility of more time when reasonably needed. I also agree with your comments on the working groups. Tim Philip Sheppard wrote: > 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

1 0