July 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Issue concerning votes on PDP
by Avri Doria July 13, 2007

July 13, 2007

Hi, To follow up on today's topic about needing to decide whether we vote on a PDP's recommendations individually or grouped. As Philip suggested during today's discussion it could be useful to determine when the Terms of Reference for a PDP were being developed whether they were to be developed as a integral set of recommendations or as individual recommendations. It is also possible that it may sometimes be difficult to know this at the beginning or that during the process of developing the recommendations, some or all of them could naturally aggregate as groups. In any case, since the by-laws leave it open as to whether the recommendations are considered individually, as several groups or as a single group, I believe that we need to leave this open to decision at the time of the council vote on the PDP, especially when not prior determinations has been made. My recommendation for a process is: i - The default is to vote on a PDP's recommendations as a single group. ii - If the the Terms of Reference for the PDP or the committee, task force or working group recommends considering on them in a specific manner; i.e., either individually, in groups or in a single group, then this recommendation should serve as the default. iii- In either case, a councillor may make the motion, which would need to be seconded, to either separate the recommendations or group them; i.e, to do something different then the basic default or recommended action. The decision would require a simple majority vote of the council. I would like to follow this recommendation starting with the vote on contractual conditions scheduled for the 9 August meeting. Discussion, comments, questions, clarifications? thanks a.

2 1

Request for volunteers re. response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Policy Issues
by Gomes, Chuck July 12, 2007

July 12, 2007

In the Council meeting today, we decided to form a small group of people who would develop draft responses to the questions asked in the "ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Policy Issues"(http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-09jul07.htm) I was the only Councilor who volunteered so I said I would take the lead in getting this going. Olof will support this group from the staff side. It is not necessary to have every constituency represented, but we do want to provide the opportunity for every constituency to have someone on this group if desired. Also, if any of the NomCom Council reps or liaisons want to participate, they would be welcome. Philip stated that he would provide a name from the BC. Our objective will be to produce a first cut at answers to the ccNSO/GAC questions and we will try to do this during the next couple weeks. Names and contact information should be submitted to me NLT Tuesday, 17 July so that we can begin work. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, 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."

3 4

PDP Feb 06: Update
by Liz Williams July 12, 2007

July 12, 2007

Colleagues I wanted to provide you with an update on the implementation impact report which is being prepared by the services and legal team. We had thought that this report may be ready in time for discussion at today's Council meeting but, given the complexity of the PDP and the range of both operational and legal issues involved, it won't be ready until the next Council meeting. Kind regards. LIz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

2 1

Background for agenda Item 8 - Planning for LA
by Avri Doria July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

Hi, > Item 8: Initial planning for LA (10 min) > > 8.1 Review suggestion for full day equivalent session on New gTLD > recommendations > It has been suggested that it would be useful to do a full day's > meeting (perhaps split into two sessions on different days) to > cover all of the recommendations in the New gTLD PDP that will have > been sent on to the board by then. Different council members could > take leadership of discussion section on each of the recommendations. The reason for this suggestion is that the recommendations will have been sent on to the board by this time and the subject matter will be under discussion during the meeting. The thought was that some of the recommendations are complex and would gain from a council explanation of the thinking behind the resolutions and the implications for implementation. This session would be cast as an extended tutorial in terms of explanation and Q&A. The council needs to decide if we support this recommendation. If so, we need to start planning. One issue that has come up regarding this session is the reality of a crowded M-F schedule. An option that has been mentioned involves doing this session on Sunday before the meeting. This would mean either cutting the GNSO pre-session work to a single day, which may not be a problem, or starting earlier - on Friday. The council should decide on this as soon as possible in order to allow announcements and scheduling if we decide that we want to do this. > > 8.2 - suggestion for restructuring Public Forum + Public meetings > > Proposal to try an experiment with the Public Forum and public > council meeting in LA. Instead of the current arrangement of a > meeting for listening and then a meeting for talking, we could > divide a 4 hour meeting up into topical sections. Each topic could > then be structured to include: > - Constituency Overview on the Topic > - Public comment on the topic > - Council discussion and resolution on the Topic. This recommendation comes out of a desire to respond to the frustration expressed in the GSNO Open Forum in SJ. thanks a.

3 3

Possible roles for GNSO vice chair/s
by Bruce Tonkin July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Hello All, Having been in the role as chair for a while, I can see at least a couple of vice-chair roles that would help spread the workload: (1) vice-chair for meetings - work with staff to schedule the various GNSO related meetings at each major ICANN meeting, as well as help plan any inter-sessional meetings (2) vice-chair for operating planning - work with staff to develop the budget for GNSO related expenses to feed into ICANN's annual operational plan/budget - e.g travel costs, as well as work with staff to plan for both staff and GNSO volunteer resources for various projects (task forces, working groups etc) - identify projects that provide efficiency improvements (e.g website updates, new use of collaboration tools, document management systems etc) - maintain a rolling 12 month operational/work plan - ensure we don't over commit projects to the available resources Note that in either case the vice chair would work with staff to essentially prepare documents for review by the Council as a whole, and publish the relevant material in sufficient time to allow Council feedback and discussion at a Council meeting. Note that at various times these roles have existed - but never really formalised. Marilyn Cade often assisted in meeting planning, and we did have a planning committee chaired by Grant Forsyth at one time. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

7 10

Update on Agenda item 7 - vote on Contractual Conditions PDP
by Avri Doria July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Hi, > Item 7: discussion and vote on Contractual conditions (30 min) > - Final Discussion of report > - Vote > (note if the Staff report is not available on Thursday 5 July, this > item falls off the schedule and we just do a schedule update in the > review of pending actions item) > The staff implementation report has not been released yet, so it will be premature to have the final discussion and vote during the upcoming meeting. If we wish to finalize this in time for the Board to process it in LA, we will need to make a decision by the first week in September - the same schedule as for New gTLDS. We should discuss the schedule for completing this and the fact that getting this done as well as the rest of the work before the council may require scheduling an additional council meeting during August. thanks a.

1 0

Explanation and background on agenda item 5 - Board resolution on ccNSO/GAC questions
by Avri Doria July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Hi, > Item 5: Approach to handling board request on GAC IDN questions (20 > min) > http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac28com.pdf This item is based on the Board's resolution that the ICANN community, including the GNSO work: - provide the board responses on the list of 'issues and questions that need to be addressed in order to move forward with IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet. - "work collaboratively, taking the technical limitations and requirements into consideration, to explore both an interim and an overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two- letter codes and recommend a course of action to the Board in a timely manner. " The GSNO council needs to decide on how it wants to approach these two resolutions. thanks a. -------- Background: The IDN outcomes report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm did discuss this question and did report support but not agreement: > 4.2.9 > > Support for a country’s rights to define/reserve IDN strings for > the country name. > > Alternative view; to also accept a country’s responsibility/right > to approve any IDN gTLD strings featuring its particular script, if > unique for that country. > Alternative view; to also acknowledge a country’s right to > influence the definitions/tables of its scripts/languages. > > Alternative view; to require a country’s support for an IDN gTLD > string in “its” script, in analogy with the considerations for geo- > political names. > > Alternative view: recognition that countries’ rights are limited to > their respective jurisdictions. > > Note: There are potential political issues in the use of scripts, > as some countries/regions claim “rights” to the standards for their > scripts. This has also been expressed as “a need to prove the > support of the respective community for accepting a TLD in its > particular script”. The RN WG also looked into the issues of ccTLDs. In terms of IDM 2 character it recommended: > Two-character IDNs need further work including outreach to > experts and discussion related to policies for two-character > IDNs and IDN versions of the ISO 3166 list. This is a > possible area for further work by the IDN WG. And in terms of Geographic names it recommended: > Top Level (ASCII and Unicode strings): > In order to approve the introduction of new gTLDs using geographic > identifiers, ICANN shall require the solicitation of input from GAC > members(s) and/or government(s) associated with the potential > geographic string (ASCII and/or Unicode). > > Additionally, Registries incorporated under the laws of those > countries that > have expressly supported the guidelines of the WIPO Standing Committee > on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical > Indications as adopted by the WIPO General Assembly (ìMember Statesî), > or have other related applicable national laws must take > appropriate action > to comply with those guidelines and those national laws. Registries > incorporated under the laws of those countries that have not expressly > supported the guidelines of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of > Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications as adopted > by the WIPO General Assembly (ìNon-Member Statesî) must take > appropriate action to comply with any related applicable national > laws. > ------------ Full text of resolutions. > Item 5: Approach to handling board request on GAC IDN questions (20 > min) > http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac28com.pdf > > Resolved (07.___), the ICANN Board respectfully requests that that > the ICANN community including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC > provide the Board with responses to the published list of issues > and questions that need to be addressed in order to move forward > with IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in > a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the > Internet. The Board requests status reports regarding progress by > the conclusion of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2007. > > Resolved (07.___), the ICANN Board respectfully requests that the > ICANN community including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC continue > to work collaboratively, taking the technical limitations and > requirements into consideration, to explore both an interim and an > overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two- > letter codes and recommend a course of action to the Board in a > timely manner. >

1 0

Proposed Draft Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 12 July 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 5, 2007

July 5, 2007

Proposed Draft GNSO Council Agenda Thursday 12 July 2007 This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 - see below for local times (05:00 am Los Angeles, 08:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne, 00:00am Wellington next day 13 July 2007) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting - 120 mins. Dial-in number sent individually to each Council member. Agenda approval Item 0: Roll call of Council members on the call Item 1: Update any statements of interest - (agenda, Items 0 -1 10 mins) Item 2: Approval of GNSO Council minutes (5 mins) - 7 June 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03587.html Item 3: Review of Pending Action Items (10 Min) (see attached pdf file 'action-items') (GNSO Council chair will update this table after each meeting, if not more often, and suggest that Council go through it quickly at the beginning of each of the Council's monthly meetings.) Item 4: Follow up on Domain Tasting decision (10 min) Selection of ad-hoc group Item 5: Approach to handling board request on GAC IDN questions (20 min) http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac28com.pdf Item 6: Approach to handling RN recommendations for existing TLDs (15 min) http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00624.html Item 7: discussion and vote on Contractual conditions (30 min) - Final Discussion of report - Vote (note if the Staff report is not available on Thursday 5 July, this item falls off the schedule and we just do a schedule update in the review of pending actions item) Item 8: Initial planning for LA (10 min) 8.1 Review suggestion for full day equivalent session on New gTLD recommendations It has been suggested that it would be useful to do a full day's meeting (perhaps split into two sessions on different days) to cover all of the recommendations in the New gTLD PDP that will have been sent on to the board by then. Different council members could take leadership of discussion section on each of the recommendations. 8.2 - suggestion for restructuring Public Forum + Public meetings Proposal to try an experiment with the Public Forum and public council meeting in LA. Instead of the current arrangement of a meeting for listening and then a meeting for talking, we could divide a 4 hour meeting up into topical sections. Each topic could then be structured to include: - Constituency Overview on the Topic - Public comment on the topic - Council discussion and resolution on the Topic. 8.3 other planning issues Item 9: Any Other Business (10 min) (05:00 LA, 08:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne, 00:00 Wellington Friday 13 July 2007) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 12:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 05:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 13:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Oslo, Norway (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia UTC+3+0DST 15:00 Phnom Penh, Cambodia UTC+7+0DST 19:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 22:00 Auckland, Wellington, New Zealand UTC+12+0DST 00:00 Friday 13 July 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2007, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com

1 0