December 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RrC Entries on the Priorities spreadsheet
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Attached. I also uploaded it to the Wiki site, but not sure if that was useful or not. Tim

3 2

Re: Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Doug Brent Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Counselors, cc: Kevin Wilson Here are some comments on the travel discussion. I¹d be quite happy to join a call with your travel committee if there are still issues that need resolution, or if I can help in any way. Much of this discussion on travel relates back to budget, but for a whole variety of reasons, it might be easier to focus on the number of supported people instead of budget dollars (and I think this could avoid some of the awkward outcomes Philip noted). The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility (and to respond to a suggestion from Olga and many others) at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only. Now, to directly respond to some of Philip's questions/comments: >On 12/9/08 2:59 PM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> wrote: (I've snipped most of Philip's text other than his questions...don't think I've changed any meaning.) > The fund pool would be determined by the total funds (less nom com and Council > chair > funding). > So far so good. Using the approach described above, you'd go back to a number of supported people, not a fund. Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers. > ------------------ > 1. Total GNSO Fund pool. > This will be uncertain and a function of the location of the GNSO nom com > people and Council > chair (ie the variable costs of air tickets and days stayed). > So how do you allocate? If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff. > 2. How are funds paid? > A lump sum to each constituency in January each year - how is it determined? > Or a constituency budget that is drawn against until it reaches zero? - how is > it > determined? Its still a function of GNSO nom com / chair travel is it not? In this model, there would just be a fixed number of supported travelers, so again, I don't think this is a problem. > 3. New Constituencies > Does each new constituency reduce the level of budget to the old > constituencies? > If NOT - is travel funding an INCENTIVE to form a new constituency ? This is something to get further feedback on. I saw a subsequent comment that perhaps there should be some time go by before a new constituency can get funding. In any event, perhaps this issue could be addressed in the upcoming review of the travel procedure. > 4. Equal allocation by constituency > Does this make sense in a new stakeholder group model? > What of a constituency of 500 members versus a constituency of 5 ? This is an issue for the Supporting Organization to decide. > Alternative > The more one considers these scenarios and unanticipated outcomes, the more a > simple > mechanism such as "all Council members get their hotel bills paid" in 2009 > makes sense. > (And maybe ICANN will look at 2010 to also fund travel for Council members). While your approach is certainly reasonable and echoed by many, many also said that there should be no travel support, and others said that support should specifically consider the needs of the new working group model. The review of this procedure will be coming soon, with I think some kind of kick-off at the Mexico City meeting. Best, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649

4 5

Registry Constituency Consultation on the Draft Base Agreement
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Forwarded from Craig Schwartz, Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Would you also please provide a copy of the MP3 from the Registry Constituency Consultation on the Draft Base Agreement which was conducted on 9 December? The link is http://audio.icann.org/ryc-consultation-20081209.mp3. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Dear collegues, Please see attached comments from ccNSO WG on geo names, endorsed by ccNSO Council. Also note that the ccNSO Council has appointed David Archbold, .ky (david.archbold(a)icta.ky) and Fahd Batayneh, .jo (fahd.batayneh(a)gmail.com) as the two representatives to the Community-Wide WG on Geographic Regions. Best regards Olga Cavalli

2 1

MP3 REcording of Consultations on Registry/Registrar Report
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Dear All, Please find the link to the MP3 recording of the Consultations on the Registry/Registrar Report held on Thursday, 11 December at 19:00 UTC http://audio.icann.org/crai-teleconference-20081211.mp3 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen On 24 October 2008, ICANN posted the CRA International report titled, "Revisiting Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars" [PDF, 493K]. This paper has generated significant discussion in the community as it discusses the potential easing of the requirement for the separation of gTLD registries and registrars. To advance community discussions on this issue, ICANN will be convening two open meetings with the first scheduled in Washington, DC on Thursday, 11 December from 2-5pm (EST) / 19:00-22:00 (UTC), and the second in Marina del Rey, CA on Friday, 19 December from 10am-1pm (PST) / 18:00-21:00 (UTC). The purpose of the consultations are to explore CRAI's recommendations regarding the relationship between registries and registrars as well as other potential models that would be acceptable to a consensus of the Internet community. If you plan to participate in these meetings, please RSVP to crai-report-consultation(a)icann.org and further information will be emailed to you. Remote participation for the meetings is available and dial-in information will be provided to you upon receipt of your RSVP. Comments on the CRAI report are welcome via email to crai-report(a)icann.org through 15 December 2008. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery presentation posted
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Dear Council Members, Please find a power point presentation of the GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/post-expiration-domain-name-recovery-i… Marika Konings will give a presentation to the Council on Thursday at the meeting under Item 6. Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (20 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-18dec08.shtml GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf - Overview Discussion and decision on next steps: Motion to consider PDP at next meeting. The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report power point presentation is posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Mike, implementing the proposed amendments does not preclude further work on the issues that have been raised. Are there any of the proposed amendments that you would not support? Again, I realize that you may like to see some of them expanded, tighter, or whatever, but I think they all at least take some positive step forward. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, December 15, 2008 4:04 pm To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Thanks Mike. I added some comments and questions that are highlighted in the attached copy of the BC comments. As you can see for yourself, a repeated question I ask is this: "Would the BC rather delay several months to see if your suggestions could be negotiated or implement the proposed amendments as is and then work on possible changes?" Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:30 PM > To: 'GNSO Council' > Subject: RE: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments > > With the attachment... > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:22 AM > To: 'GNSO Council' > Subject: RE: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments > > > Chuck, > > As a start, attached are the BC's comments from August. > Perhaps Staff and/or the Registrar reps could explain how our > comments, or any other public comments, have been > incorporated into the RAA Amendments proposal since then? > Other constituencies may also feel that their comments have > been completely ignored. > > Thanks, > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:18 AM > To: Avri Doria; Liz Gasster > Cc: Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments > > > I hope we can at least get some details about which of the > amendments people are concerned with. I am having trouble > understanding which of them would not be better than what we > have now. If I am wrong, fine. > But if I am not, I think we should quit delaying. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:23 AM > > To: Liz Gasster > > Cc: Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks Liz. > > > > I think that at this point it might make sense to postpone > the vote on > > the RAA from this week's meeting and to include some explanation on > > these amendments. I will try to adjust the timings on > the various > > meeting topics accordingly. > > > > a. > > > > > > > > On 15 Dec 2008, at 16:43, Liz Gasster wrote: > > > > > > > > Chuck and all, > > > > > > In addition to being an update with more detail than was > previously > > > provided, this is the written report detailed in the current RAA > > > process for amendments in subsection 4.3.1 > > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#4.3.1 > > > ). Services staff wanted to make sure this information was > > available > > > to the GNSO before it considered a vote on the RAA amendments. > > > > > > Most notably, it also contains two new proposed amendments > > that arose > > > from the latest public comment period and subsequent community > > > dialogue. One of these enhances the licensee provision and > > the other > > > requires registrars to post their current email and mailing > > address on > > > their websites. > > > > > > Please let me know if you have any other questions. > > > > > > Thanks, Liz > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:50 AM > > > To: Liz Gasster; Council GNSO > > > Subject: RE: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments > > > > > > Thanks Liz. What was updated? > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster > > >> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:01 PM > > >> To: Council GNSO > > >> Subject: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments > > >> Importance: High > > >> > > >> All, > > >> > > >> Attached please find an updated report from Services on > > the pending > > >> amendments to the RAA. This report updates and expands on > > the paper > > >> sent on 29 October 2008. > > >> > > >> Thanks, Liz > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Revised Report on RAA amendments
by Liz Gasster Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

All, Attached please find an updated report from Services on the pending amendments to the RAA. This report updates and expands on the paper sent on 29 October 2008. Thanks, Liz

4 8

Revised Whois Study Summary
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Please disregard the previous Whois Studies Summary document and replace it with this one. It is requested that the RC, ISCPC, NCUC, ALAC and NomCom reps fill in the two column of boxes in the table and send the file back saved with the same file name with the group initials added. Thanks, Chuck

4 4

Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Avri Doria Dec. 14, 2008

Dec. 14, 2008

Hi, It was mentioned that in keeping with our current practice of being explicit with timings as much as possible, we should be more specific about when we will take the required PDP votes after receiving an Issues report. This motion is intended to fill that gap. thanks a. ---- Moved by: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has been produced and introduced to the GNSO Council. Resolve: The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January 2009.

2 3