October 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Motion on Whois studies
by Avri Doria Oct. 19, 2008

Oct. 19, 2008

Hi, While putting together the agenda for the Cairo week, I was wondering whether there was any chance we would be in position to take a vote on a motion to request funding information on studies. If so, we need to have a draft of the motion on the table as soon as possible for people to consider and discuss with their constituencies. I know a lot of work is still ongoing in some of the constituencies, but this activity has been pending a while and we are overdue on our schedule. At the very least we need a definitive view of where we are in the process and a clear schedule of when we will take the next step. I have assigned some prominence to the item on the schedule in the expectation that we work to do it. Thanks a.

3 3

Re: [liaison6c] Follow-up on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements
by Denise Michel Oct. 18, 2008

Oct. 18, 2008

Milton, Thanks for your note. I think we share the clear expectation that in the new bicameral voting model Council structure adopted by the Board, the new Stakeholder Groups will play a fundamental role in seating Council representatives. The Stakeholder Groups and their respective relationships with the existing (and any new) GNSO constituencies will be developed and I understand many details need to be worked out. The draft constituency template documents I circulated this week are intended to provide guidance to any potential new constituencies as they structure their formal petitions to the Board. The templates are not intended to be prescriptive in any way. Rather, they provide (long overdue) material to allow any interest group to take advantage of the ICANN Bylaw directives regarding the creation of new constituencies. In preparing the draft templates, Staff reviewed existing constituency bylaws and charters in an effort to capture the full range of potential issues that a new constituency should consider. In light of your note, I do see that Section 6.0 of the New Constituency template entitled "GNSO Council Representation" could be confusing and should be amended to reference a Stakeholder Group's role. We welcome any other specific edits or comments you or other members of the community may have on the style or substance of the draft templates. We recognize that each Stakeholder Group will encounter challenges as they work to develop a model for Board approval. To that end Staff is developing an additional draft Stakeholder Group Template that will offer similar support based on a review of the existing ICANN Bylaws, the recent Board resolutions and the relevant Board Governance Committee recommendations. We also recognize the particular challenge for the Non Commercial Stakeholders Group. The BGC Report clearly stated that the group must go "far beyond the membership of the current Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)" and "must consider educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations, as well as individual registrants, as part of a Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group." In view of your efforts to date it is clear that you are trying to address that challenge head-on. It was evident in the recent GNSO Implementation Team meetings and even in discussion during this week's GNSO Council teleconference meeting, that there is still some community confusion about the new processes developed by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring as ultimately approved by the Board and the Board-approved GNSO Improvement recommendations. We are quite mindful of the learning curve and are working to develop materials that will help all community members better understand and work through the interrelationships between interest groups, constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. Your continued willingness to engage in the process and offer your thoughts and ideas is most appreciated. Regards, Denise -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > Denise: > > Thanks for the effort to compile some information about the changes > underway in the GNSO. > > Unfortunately, there seems to be a rather large disconnect between what the > staff has produced and what ICANN's actual GNSO participants are discussing > and doing. To help your staff get more in touch with bottom-up developments, > I've prepared this note. > > > > Virtually everyone involved in the discussions of new stakeholder groups > has figured out that it is not viable for the formation of constituency > groups to be tied to GNSO Council seats. > > > > Let me explain in very simple terms why this must be so. > > > > The commercial and noncommercial stakeholder groups each get 6 seats on the > user side of the Council. If adding a constituency means allocating a > certain number of those fixed seats to the new constituency, then every time > you add a constituency, the members of each existing constituency lose > voting power. This makes the whole process into a zero-sum game, a power > struggle. This is unnecessary and unproductive. And it is not difficult to > imagine a situation in which you end up with 7 or 8 constituencies, and > there are only 6 Council seats. What happens then? > > > > Also, organizing things this way raises important questions about the > relative size of constituencies. Should a constituency with, say 10 member > organizations or individuals get the same number of Council seats as one > with 20 or 30? How will the Board know about the relative size of each > constituency, especially as it changes over time? > > > > The overall effect of your approach, whether intended or not, is just to > encourage splinter groups to form. Rather than encouraging more people and > organizations to get involved in GNSO, it rewards existing participants to > game the system by splitting off and forming new constituencies. And if you > look at which groups are talking about forming new constituencies, that is > exactly what you see: existing participants splintering off, no new > participants. > > > > It would be easier to have SG's as a whole elect the seats. That is what > the NCSG plans to do. That gives new constituencies an incentive to bring in > NEW organizations and participants, so that they can get more votes. > > > GNSO participants from a wide variety of perspectives – registrars, > commercial, noncommercial -- have been discussing this for 2 months now, and > I don't know of a single person who supports the view that Council seats > should be tied to constituency recognition any more. And yet the forms you > have prepared here seem to assume that they are. > > > > More troublesome, either the staff or the Board – I don't know which – > seems to be assuming that we need to be handed a top-down solution. That is > really not very helpful at the current moment. It would be better for the > Board to allow the nascent Stakeholder Groups to work out, among themselves, > how to organize the transition to the new structure, and to put their > proposals before the Board for approval or disapproval. > > > > We will all be in Cairo. We have joint user meetings to discuss this. I > look forward to your participation then. > > > > --MM > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto: > owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Denise Michel > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:02 PM > *To:* council(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Janis > Karklins; Alan Greenberg; Bertrand de La Chapelle > *Subject:* [liaison6c] Follow-up on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements > > > > Dear Community Members: > > > In advance of the 16 Oct. GNSO Council meeting, I wanted to provide > everyone with the follow-up action items from the Board's most recent draft > GNSO Restructuring Resolution (see draft resolution below and at < > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm>). I'd be happy > to elaborate on these during the Council call, or feel free to email > questions to <policy-staff(a)icann.org>. > > 1) COUNCIL CHAIR -- The Board adopted the WG-GCR recommendation that the > GNSO Council Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and > each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting its > own Vice Chair. To address questions on whether a "back-up" process was > needed in the event that a vote did not yield a Chair, the Board decided to > ask the Council to consider this matter. "The Board directs the Council to > develop a process for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair > is duly elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair > election of the newly structured Council." > > *ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements > implementation, this should be addressed and provided to the Board. > > 2) BOARD SEATS -- "The Board and General Counsel have outstanding questions > about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board seat elections and directs > Staff to share these with the community and seek additional input." > > *ACTION: Staff will post outstanding questions and solicit input shortly. > > 3) VOTING THRESHOLDS -- The Board adopted all voting thresholds proposed by > the WG-GCR Report. Concerns that implementation of GNSO Improvements (e.g. > new PDP, working group model, etc) might necessitate additions to, or > clarifications of, thresholds, the Board requested that "the GNSO develop > any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as part of > its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be submitted to the > Board for approval." (Note: this draft wording likely will be changed to > avoid confusion; the Board expects to receive an overall plan for > implementing restructuring; this is separate from the GNSO's effort to > create a structure of committees and teams to start the GNSO Improvements > implementation work.) > > *ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements > implementation, this should be addressed and, if changes or additions are > deemed necessary, they should be provided to the Board. > > 4) NEW/EXISTING CONSTITUENCIES -- The Board acknowledged Staff development > of a "Notice of Intent" document for potential new constituencies (*see > attached) and directed Staff "to develop a formal petition and charter > template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria > (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of > petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is directed to work with > the existing GNSO constituencies to design and develop a streamlined process > along with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely > recognition and approval of existing constituencies". > > *ACTION: Attached is a "Notice of Intent" to solicit and publicly share > information on entities interested in forming new constituencies, along with > a proposed petition and charter template. Staff would appreciate receiving > any input you may have by 28 Oct. Staff also is developing for your > consideration a draft template for constituencies to use to enable the Board > to "renew" constituencies. Since this is a new endeavor, Staff is offering > a draft as a starting point for discussion. Staff will collect and share > input with the community during the Cairo ICANN meeting. > > 5) STAKEHOLDER GROUPS — The Board "reinforced its support for the following > principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups, and > requests that all constituency members and other relevant parties comply > with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements > Report approved by the Board in establishing the newly formed structures, > including: the need to better represent the wide variety of groups and > individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that can > change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders; and the > inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the expansion of > constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable." Further, Staff > was directed to work with the GNSO community to develop "a set of > streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other > mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder > Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of > those structures." The Board directed that plans for each of the four new > Stakeholder Groups be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN > Mexico City Board meeting, and the plans "must be reviewed and approved by > the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. > The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council seats in > the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be deficient or > delayed." > > *ACTION: Staff will provide some initial draft material shortly to support > community consideration and discussion. > > 6) ROLE/REPRESENTATION OF USERS — The Board requested additional community > "dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of individual > Internet users, including individual commercial and non-commercial Internet > users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the ALAC and At-Large community, > and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly > helpful and should address the inclusion of registrants and individual users > in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its supporting > structures, and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet users' > gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO." > > *ACTION: Staff will post a public comment solicitation and will provide > background information to encourage community consideration and input to the > Board. > > 7) IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE — The Board amended its previous implementation > timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council > voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that > begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new > Council. The implementation phases will be as follows: > > -Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in > advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; > > - Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the > Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; > > - Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for > consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and > > - Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select > Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated > by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. > > *ACTION — Staff will assist the GNSO in developing a restructuring > implementation plan that the Board expects to receive later this year. > > =================== > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Membership and Leadership Selection:) > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.06), as recommended by the WG-GCR, the Board > authorizes a third Council-level non-voting Nominating Committee > Appointee to serve on the Council whose presence could preserve an > independent aspect on the Council and could provide useful management > support as the Council moves toward a working group management function. > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.07), the Board authorizes the GNSO Council > to elect a Chair consistent with the recommendation of the WG-GCR - that > the GNSO Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and > each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting > its own Vice Chair. The Board directs the Council to develop a process > for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly > elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair > election of the newly structured Council. > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.08), the Board and General Counsel have > outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board > seat elections and directs Staff to share these with the community and > seek additional input. > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Operational/Voting Considerations:) > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.09), the Board adopts all voting thresholds > proposed in the WG-GCR Report. The Board requests that the GNSO develop > any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as > part of its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be > submitted to the Board for approval. > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Stakeholder and Constituency Organizational > Concerns:) > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10), the Board acknowledges Staff's > development of the "Notice of Intent" documentation for potential new > constituencies and directs Staff to develop a formal petition and > charter template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative > criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's > evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is > directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and > develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that > will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing > constituencies. > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.11), the Board reinforces its support for > the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new > Stakeholder Groups, and requests that all constituency members and other > relevant parties comply with the principles included in the BGC Working > Group's GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board in establishing > the newly formed structures, including: > > - The need to better represent the wide variety of groups and > individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that > can change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders. > > - The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the > expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable. > > > It is, further Resolved (2008.10.01.12), that the Board further directs > Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of > streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other > mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder > Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of > those structures. > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.13), the Board directs that plans for each > of the four new Stakeholder Groups, that are consistent with the above > principles, be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN > Mexico City Board meeting. The plans must be reviewed and approved by > the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. > The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council > seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be > deficient or delayed. > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (The Role of Individual Internet Users in the > GNSO:) > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.14), The Board requests additional community > dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of > individual Internet users, including individual commercial and > non-commercial Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the > ALAC and At-Large community, and any relevant applicants for new > constituencies, would be particularly helpful and should address the > inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner > that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures, and ensures > that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are > effectively represented within the GNSO. > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Implementation Timing:) > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous > implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new > bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased > implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 > with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be > as follows: > > Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in > advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; > > Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the > Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; > > Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for > consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and > > Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select > Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated > by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. > > >

1 0

Absentee voting closed on motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the IRTP Denial Definitions PDP
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 17, 2008

Oct. 17, 2008

Dear Councilors, Absentee voting is closed on the motion amending the Council Resolution on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) as stated below. The motion passed and the results are: 21 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (two votes each) Absentee votes in favour were registered from Mike Rodenbaugh (one vote) and Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes) Motion 1 Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) Moved: Chuck Gomes Seconded: Avri Doria Whereas: * On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a Recommendation concluding a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy; * The ensuing public comment period rendered a comment identifying a possibility to misinterpret a part of the proposed text for Denial Reason #9, notably the words "or transfer to the Registrar of Record"; * The GNSO Council, in consultation with members of the drafting group for this PDP, has found it appropriate to delete these words from the proposed text for Denial Reason #9; Resolved: That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads: A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). Be amended to read: A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP)
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 17, 2008

Oct. 17, 2008

Forwarded from Mike Rodenbaugh > > * On the motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on > the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions > Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: > * [X] Yes > * [ ] No > * [ ] Abstain > * Password: black-2 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: vendredi 17 octobre 2008 01:37 To: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Avri Doria Cc: GNSO Secretariat; Olof Nordling Subject: Re: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP) thanks Chuck, sorry for missing the mtg, and the resulting confusion on my end. ----- Original Message ---- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>; Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>; Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Cc: GNSO Secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>; Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 2:26:12 PM Subject: RE: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP) Clarification in the meeting was made about this. The motion provides the language in the existing policy and the latest proposed wording recommended to the Board. It would have been helpful to show the previously recommended wording change and to have highlighted the text that was deleted. Because everyone on the call seemed to be comfortable, we went with the motion as is. BTW Mike, I had the same problem when I first read the motion. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 5:20 PM > To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria > Cc: GNSO Secretariat; Olof Nordling > Subject: FW: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council > Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP) > > Mike, I defer to Avri and Chuck, > > Avri and Chuck will you please respond to Mike. > Thank you, > Glen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] > Sent: jeudi 16 octobre 2008 21:22 > To: Glen de Saint Géry > Subject: RE: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council > Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP) > > Glen, the resolution does not jive with the Whereas clauses > -- the language to be deleted is not shown in the "current > text" shown in Resolution para. > 1... > > > * On the motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on > the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions > Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: > * [X] Yes > * [ ] No > * [ ] Abstain > * Password: black-2 > > Motion on Amendment to Council Resolution on the > Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions > Policy Development Process (PDP) > Moved: Chuck Gomes > Seconded: Avri Doria > > Whereas: > > * On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a Recommendation > concluding a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four > of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the > Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy; > > * The ensuing public comment period rendered a comment > identifying a > possibility to misinterpret a part of the proposed text for > Denial Reason #9, notably the words "or transfer to the > Registrar of Record"; > > * The GNSO Council, in consultation with members of the > drafting group > for this PDP, has found it appropriate to delete these words > from the proposed text for Denial Reason #9; > > > Resolved: > > 1. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads: > > A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be > determined) after being transferred (apart from being > transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where > both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the > dispute resolution process so directs). > > Be amended to read: > > A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be > determined) after being transferred (apart from being > transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where > both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the > dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall > only mean that an inter-registrar transfer has occurred in > accordance with the procedures of this policy. > > > Thank you. > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > tel : +33 (0) 9 524 570 44 > Voice mail: +33 4 93 45 21 27 > Cell + 33 6 21 79 24 54 > Blackberry email: gnso(a)mobileemail.vodafone.fr > > > >

1 0

Cairo - GNSO Council Working Sessions
by Rosette, Kristina Oct. 17, 2008

Oct. 17, 2008

All, With apologies if we discussed the agendas this morning after I had to drop off the call, would it be possible to switch some topics so that new gTLD implementation could be covered on Sunday instead of Saturday? A number of IPC members who would like to attend that session will be in transit or just arriving in Cairo - and unable to participate remotely - late Saturday afternoon and evening. (I am one of these IPC members; I arrive in Cairo early Saturday evening.) Many thanks. K

2 1

Re: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP)
by Jordi Iparraguirre Oct. 17, 2008

Oct. 17, 2008

> * On the motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: > * [X] Yes > * [ ] No > * [ ] Abstain > * Password: Green-0 > > * On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a Recommendation concluding a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy; > > * The ensuing public comment period rendered a comment identifying a possibility to misinterpret a part of the proposed text for Denial Reason #9, notably the words "or transfer to the Registrar of Record"; > > * The GNSO Council, in consultation with members of the drafting group for this PDP, has found it appropriate to delete these words from the proposed text for Denial Reason #9; -- Jordi Iparraguirre Fundació puntCAT www.domini.cat

1 0

Draft Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs Available Soon
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 17, 2008

Oct. 17, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-16oct08-en.htm Draft Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs Available Soon Six-module guide out for public comment in next fortnight 16 October 2008 In the next two weeks, in the lead up to ICANN's Cairo public meeting, the new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Applicant Guidebook, also called the "draft Request for Proposal (RFP)", will be released. This document will provide information to applicants wanting to apply for a new gTLD. The Draft Applicant Guidebook will be in a draft format and posted for public comment and review. It will comprise six modules: Introduction to the gTLD Application Process, which includes the main application fee Evaluation Process Objection and Dispute Resolution String Contention Transition to Delegation Top-Level Domain Allocation Terms and Conditions An accompanying announcement to the Draft Applicant Guidebook will highlight areas of the process that remain under development. These areas will be made available for public consultation in the near future. A public comment webpage will allow for detailed review and input submitted by the Internet community. ICANN expects to engage in a productive and robust dialogue with the Internet community through a consultative process that will last for forty-five days. Comments will be used to revise and prepare the final Applicant Guidebook, to be released early 2009. In addition to the Draft Applicant Guidebook, ICANN will post a series of papers that will serve as explanatory memoranda to assist the Internet community to better understand the implementation work. Some of the topics covered by these papers include the proposed methodologies for string contention resolution and protection of rights of others. For current information, timelines and activities related to the New gTLD Program, please go to http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New gTLDs and ICANN - a brief overview Since ICANN was founded ten years ago as a non-for-profit, multi stakeholder organization dedicated to coordinating the Internet's addressing system, one of its foundational principles, recognized by the United States and other governments, has been to promote competition in the domain-name marketplace while ensuring Internet security and stability. The expansion will allow for more innovation, choice and change to the Internet's addressing system, now constrained by only 21 generic top-level domain names. In a world with 1.5 billion Internet users - and growing - diversity, choice and competition is key to the continued success and reach of the global network. The decision to launch these coming new gTLD application rounds followed a detailed and lengthy consultation process with all constituencies of the global Internet community. Representatives from a wide variety of stakeholders - governments, individuals, civil society, business and intellectual property constituencies, and the technology community - were engaged in discussions for more than 18 months. In October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) - one of the groups that coordinate global internet policy at ICANN - completed its policy development work on new gTLDs and approved a set of recommendations. The culmination of this policy development process was a decision by the ICANN Board of Directors to adopt the community-developed policy in June 2008 at the ICANN meeting in Paris. A thorough brief to the Policy process and outcomes can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/. Related links: New gTLD program: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Cairo international public meeting: http://cai.icann.org/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: GNSO Council Member Term Limits
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 17, 2008

Oct. 17, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13oct08-en.htm Public Comment: GNSO Council Member Term Limits 13 October 2008 Public comments are invited on a proposed change to the ICANN bylaws that would implement term limits for GNSO Council members. Currently there is no limit to the number of consecutive terms in which a GNSO Council member may serve. In November 2006, the GNSO Council passed a resolution endorsing term limits, wherein a council member could serve no more than two consecutive terms (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200611) Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. In light of the pending GNSO review which was underway at the time, the ICANN Board postponed action on term limits. The ICANN Board Governance Committee subsequently included term limits as a recommendation in the GNSO Improvements Report (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-0…, see Sec. 5.1, p. 28) The Report recommends that the preferred limit be two 2-year terms, in order to enhance inclusiveness and enable more people to become involved in Council activities. The GNSO Improvements package was approved by the Board on 26 June 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182. The draft bylaws change also creates an exception, as recommended by the GNSO Council and the Board Governance Committee, in a "special circumstance," such as geographic diversity requirements, where no alternative representative is available to serve. Currently, the GNSO Council, constituencies and ICANN staff are working to implement a new structure for constituency representation and voting for the GNSO Council. In considering the imposition of term limits for GNSO Council members, comments are particularly invited on whether the pending reorganization presents issues for the implementation of term limits that should be considered before term limits are adopted, including any other aspects of the new structure, such as the creation of stakeholder groups or the formation of new constituencies. ICANN also invites comments on when term limits should go into effect. The proposed revised bylaws text can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-gnso-term-limits-draft-amendment-13o… [PDF, 45K] The public is invited to comment on this proposed bylaws change before consideration by the Board. Staff Member responsible: Liz Gasster To submit comments: gnso-bylaw-revision(a)icann.org To view comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-bylaw-revision/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RyC Steering Committee Members
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 2008

The RyC selected the following as representatives to the two GNSO Improvements Steering Committees: Policy Process Steeing Committee (PPSC) Jeff Neuman, primary representative (Caroline Greer, alternate) Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Ken Stubbs, primary representative (David Maher, alternate) Jeff, Caroline and David plan to be in Cairo on Sunday for the kickoff meetings. Chuck

1 1

GNSO Council meeting MP3 recording 16 October 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 2008

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 16 October, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20081016.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0