October 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council Resolutions 16 October 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the motions that was passed by the GNSO Council on Thursday, 16 October 2008. Kind regards, Glen Motion 1. 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. 18 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, after 24 hours, still to be counted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Motion 2. Motion on Geographic Regions Motion (carried forward from 25 September) Motion: Olga Cavalli Second: Tim Ruiz & Chuck Gomes Whereas: In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm#_Toc55609368 requesting "that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions" In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/michel-to-doria-15jul08.pdf requested the GNSO "provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate" In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-17jul08.shtml agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008 In the 4 September 2008 Council meeting Council representatives were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 The Council reviewed in its meeting on 16 October 2008. Resolve: The GNSO Council approves the proposed GNSO comments. The Council Chair is asked to submit the GNSO comments to the Board. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion 3. Motion on ccNSO Liasion Motion: Avri Doria Second: Adrian Kinderis Whereas The GNSO has decided in the past on its interest in exchanging a liaison with the ccNSO and has communicated this interest to the chair of the ccNSO, and Initial discussions were held in Paris during the joint meeting between the GNSO and the ccNSO on the exchange of liaisons between the GNSO council and the ccNSO council The GNSO in earlier discussions had approved the idea in principle of exchanging liaisons, and The Chair of the ccNSO sent a formal note (email reference 17 September 2008) http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05450.html to the GNSO chair indicating that the ccNSO council was interested in an exchange of observers. Resolve: The Chair of the GNSO send the following to the chair of the ccNSO: Dear Chris, On behalf of the GNSO council, I thank you for your note on behalf of the ccNSO council regarding the exchange of observers. The GNSO council reiterates its interest in cooperation on issues of mutual interest and in the ongoing exchange of information between the GNSO and the ccNSO. The GNSO council is in agreement with an exchange of observers on the basis you proposed. Specifically: "Both the GNSO observer to the ccNSO Council and the ccNSO Observer to the GNSO Council shall not be considered a member of or entitled to vote on the Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the Councils." The GNSO council will select a representative shortly and welcomes the participation of the representative to be selected by the ccNSO council. I will notify you and the ccNSO secretariat once the GNSO council has completed its selection process. Best Regards, The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion 4a Motion on amending GNSO Improvement Plan - Membership in Operational Steering Committee Motion: Avri Doria Second: Chuck Gomes 1. In the section "Members in the PPSC" on page 9 of the GNSO Improvements Plan modify Unless otherwise determined by the PPSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus" process. to Unless otherwise determined by the PPSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process. 2. In the section "Members in the OSC" on page 12 of the GNSO Improvements Plan modify Unless otherwise determined by the OSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus" process. to Unless otherwise determined by the OSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process. 3. In the section "Other Participants in the OSC" on page 12, of the GNSO Improvements Plan add: o 1 representative from any constituencies-in-formation formally involved in the process of applying for inclusion in one of the GNSO Stakeholder groups. The definition of the new constituency process should include the requirements that need to be met to achieve this status. The motion did not pass 9 votes in favour: Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (two votes each) 9 votes against: Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein (one vote each) Tim Ruiz (Two votes) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Motion 4b. Motion on GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-24sept08… Motion: Chuck Gomes Second: Avri Doria Whereas: The ICANN Board in resolution 2008.02.15.03 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918 directed the ICANN Staff to "draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO" Such a plan was developed by the Planning Team composed of staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation The ICANN board in resolution 2008.06.26.13 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group The ICANN board in its meeting on 1 October 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm approved resolutions 6 through 15 relating to the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Working Group and the specific topic of GNSO Council Restructuring, Resolved: The GNSO will develop a plan for GNSO Council restructuring implementation that is separate and distinct from the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan as directed in resolution 2008.10.01.15 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm The GNSO Council approves the Framework defined in the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan dated 24 September 2008 as prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-24sept08… (as updated) The GNSO Council requests that constituencies, NomCom appointees, the ALAC and the GAC identify representatives to serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Plan by 24 October 2008 if possible, but not later than 31 October Kickoff meetings of the Standing Committees be held during the ICANN meetings in Cairo (1-7 November 2008) with teleconference capability for any who may not be able to attend in-person. Passed unanimously by voice vote Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Request for absentee voting GNSO Council meeting 16 October 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 2008

Dear Councilors, In keeping with the absentee voting procedures, all councilors who were absent from the meeting today, Thursday 16 October, at the time of voting on the motion below, are invited to send the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> a request for a ballot. Councilors noted as absent at the time of the vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Jon Bing, Tony Harris, Cyril Chua, Norbert Klein, Tom Keller, Jordi Iparraguirre. You will then be sent a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The Chair requested that this process should be completed within 24 hours of the meeting which ended at 14:23 UTC on Thursday 16 October 2008. Completed ballots are due NLT 14:23 UTC, on Friday, 17 October 2008 (07:23 PDT, 10:23 EDT, 11:23 Buenos Aires, 16:23 CEST (Germany, Norway, Spain) 21:25 Phnom Penh, 22:23 HongKong) Absentee voting http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X c. Absentee voting. Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on whether to initiate a PDP, forward a policy recommendation to the Board, or fill a position open for election may vote by absentee ballot. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ALAC statement on WHOIS hypothesis WG Studies
by Liz Gasster Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 2008

All, The ALAC Statement on WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies has been approved. The text may be found at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_whois_hypothesis_work… Thanks, Liz

1 0

October Policy Update
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 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] Dear All, The October Policy Update is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-oct08-en.htm All Policy Updates can be found on page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/ To receive these directly each month please subscribe by completeing the form on page : (http://www.icann.org/en/newsletter/) Translated versions will be coming shortly. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated Rosette Statement of Interest
by Rosette, Kristina Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 2008

All, Attached is an updated Statement of Interest. For your convenience, I've also attached a redline that highlights the changes. K <<Redline Rosette Statement of Interest.DOC>> <<102008 Rosette GNSO Council Statement of Interest - SCRUBBED on 10-15-08 23_31.DOC>>

1 0

Agenda Oct 16
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 15, 2008

Oct. 15, 2008

Chuck, note on motion 3b it incorrectly said "standing" not "steering" committee. I have made the edit on the wiki. Philip

3 3

RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2008

Oct. 15, 2008

Is a CIF created simply by submitting a request/application, or is there other criteria? Also, the SC members, upon full consensus, should be able to bar disruptive observers. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, October 10, 2008 5:27 pm To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> If we went this direction, then pending constituencies could participate without voting until such time that they were approved as a constituency and then they could vote. That doesn't sound bad to me. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:16 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on > the compositon of the OSC > > > > On 10 Oct 2008, at 12:02, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > I am hoping there will be more discussion like this and to > encourage > > it even more, I second the motion for the amendment. > > thanks. > > > We will probably have to define 'full consensus' more > precisely. Would > > 'observers' be included in full consensus? If so, then what is the > > difference between being a regular member and an observer? > > I have always assumed it was full consensus of members not > including other participants. for example wile the comments > of staff are always highly valued, I did not assume they were > figuring into the consensus decisions. they are list among > other participants. Note: this is different then in the > planing team where staff are members of the team due to the > nature of the Board's mandate to staff and council. > > If necessary for clarity we could amend the two instances of: > > Decision making for the [P,O]SC > * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members, > committee decisions > will be made using a "full consensus" process. > > to > > Decision making for the [P,O]SC > * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members, > committee decisions > will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process. > > > > a. > > > >

2 1

Proposed motion on an amendement regarding the outcome of the PDP on clarification of Transfer Denial Reasons
by Olof Nordling Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Dear all, Following the public comments regarding the new proposed texts for transfer denial reasons #8 and #9 and the subsequent discussion on this list, Chuck asked me to draft a motion for an amendment on this, for consideration on the call 16 October. Please find the draft motion below - it is also on the wiki. Very best regards Olof ---------------------- Motion on Amendment to Council Resolution on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) Moved: Chuck Gomes Seconded: 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.

2 1

Proposed bylaws change on term limits for GNSO Council members - open for public comment
by Liz Gasster Oct. 13, 2008

Oct. 13, 2008

All, As you may know, 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 ). The resolution also stated that a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. 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. Following is a link to the announcement and public comment notice for a forum that has just opened on this proposed change, prior to final Board action, which includes proposed new bylaws text: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13oct08-en.htm, and http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-bylaw-revision . The draft bylaws change also creates an exception, as recommended previously 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. Please note also that because the GNSO Council, constituencies and ICANN staff are working to implement a new structure for constituency representation and voting for the GNSO Council, 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 comment period is open until 3 November. Thanks, Liz

1 0

RE: [council] Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 13, 2008

Oct. 13, 2008

Mike, The RyC has specifically defined membership: members have to have a registry agreement with ICANN. It does not make sense to use the RyC as an example for a user constituency. At the same time, what if there are a bunch of new city gTLDs that want to form their own constituency. As long as they can show that there is strong interest from the city gTLD operators and that they have a plan for representing them, then fine. There are tens of thousands of solo attorneys around the world. So 20 solo attorneys wanting to form a constituency would need to show that there is reasonable interest from the broader community of solo attorneys and they have a plan for representing them. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:13 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Philip > Sheppard; GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] Impovements plan - a comment on the > compositon of the OSC > > What is reasonable. Now the RyC has less than 20 members, > right. So if i get 20 solo attorneys together, we are in? > > > ------Original Message------ > From: Chuck Gomes > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > To: Philip Sheppard > To: GNSO Council > Sent: Oct 10, 2008 9:07 AM > Subject: RE: [council] Impovements plan - a comment on the > compositon of the OSC > > > As long as the group meets minimal, measurable criteria > including evidence that there is support from a reasonable > number of members from the community to be represented, they > should be included. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 9:53 AM > > To: 'Council GNSO' > > Subject: [council] Impovements plan - a comment on the > compositon of > > the OSC > > > > > > Avri, re your concern about excluding constituencies in formation. > > > > I will shortly be applying for a new constituency on behalf of the > > "Members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" > > (ref: http://www.venganza.org/ ) > > > > I regard any cynicism as to this not being a serious > application as an > > affront to my religious faith. > > See Dawson, Richard " The God Delusion" for an explication of the > > theological arguments. > > > > I trust you will review this application as "serious" : > > ref' Doria, Avri " "I believe that once a serious group of > organizers > > have declared themselves publicly.." ) > > > > Philip > > > > PS I trust you see my point concerning the problem with any > judgement > > of "serious". > > > > > > > > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > Rodenbaugh Law >

3 2