December 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Travel support draft text
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Agree. So what are the next steps? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: Wed, December 10, 2008 12:34 pm To: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth(a)yahoo.com> Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Yes, this change makes sense. On Dec 10, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Greg Ruth wrote: I agree with this change. Greg From: Olga Cavalli <olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar> To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:11:12 PM Subject: Re: [council] Travel support draft text Phillip, yo make a good suggestion. I personally agree. If I do not hear any other comments I will rewrite the draft document. We should review this issue during our next conference call. Best Olga 2008/12/8 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Olga, thanks for circulating this. Seems fine. On reporting I think we can be transparent without being bureaucratic and burdensome on volunteers. There is no merit in 15 Council members all writing a report saying "I attended a Council meeting". Moreover, I presume the system is that Constituencies nominate who gets the support but then the individual still needs to apply to ICANN staff for that support ? If so staff is fully informed of who gets what and other staff is fully informed of who attended what. Suggest the following instead: Philip -------------------- Transparency and Reporting: ICANN staff will publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org

5 4

ICANN Board meeting agenda 11 Dec 08
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

11 December 2008 From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/ Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors Proposed Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes 2. New gTLD Implementation Issues 3. 2009-2012 Strategic Plan 4. Report from Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad 5. United States Elections Results Transition Discussion 6. At-Large Community Summit in Mexico City 7. GNSO Improvements / Implementation 8. Role of Individual Users in GNSO 9. Proposed Change to ICANN Bylaws regarding imposing Term Limits for GNSO Council Members 10. Registry Agreements Update - .AERO and .POST 11. Monthly President's Report 12. Reports from Board Committees 13. Other Business 14. Board Only Session

2 1

Travel support draft text
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

Dear collegues, the text prepared by the drafting team on Travel support funds is included in this email for your revision and comments. A special request for flexibility on the use of travel funds was made to ICANN staff in a meeting in Cairo. Flexibility could be possible but there are fiduciary controls that makes it difficult. Feedback about this issue will be provided by ICANN staff. They said it could be very useful if GNSO may set up a group that provides input to staff about these travel issues, in both phases (until June and after). In this regard I want to suggest that we keep this drafting team as the group in charge of interacting with ICANN staff in relation with travel funds. We could discuss this during our next conference call. Please let me know if you have any doubt or question. Best regards Olga *GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING* Allocation and Control: The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies. The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings, including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group meetings. The use of travel support funds is to be solely determined by each constituency independently as it sees fit to most effectively progress the work of the GNSO. The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated to individuals. Transparency and Reporting: The names of all who receive travel support must be made known publicly. What is covered for each (e.g. air fare, accommodations, per diem – not the dollar amounts) must also be made public. Everyone who is supported must make known (e.g. in a report) publicly the dates of travel, accommodations (which hotel) and meetings attended and/or work accomplished. Note: This should take less than a page to describe.

4 4

whois studies phone call - amended agenda
by Avri Doria Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

- review agenda - presentation of the IPC comment on the RyC model - presentation of the BC comments on the model - presentation of any other available constituency comments or postions - discussion of the proposal RyC+IPC+BC(+? in any) for moving ahead - next steps

1 0

whois studies phone call
by Avri Doria Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

Hi, Today's phone call does not have a formal agenda, and hence no decisions , in terms of votes, will be made. It would be good, however, if we could begin to come to some initial conclusion about the grouping of studies and the priorities of groups. As an agenda I propose: - review agenda - presentation of the IPC comment on the RyC model - presentation of any other available constituency comments or postions - discussion of the proposal RyC+IPC(+? in any) for moving ahead - next steps Please comment and amplify on this agenda. thanks a.

2 1

FW: Whois studies: BC comment on RyC "working model"
by Mike Rodenbaugh Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

Attached are BC comments on the RyC Whois study proposal and IPC's comments, prepared by Steve DelBianco of NetChoice. Thanks, Mike

1 0

Whois studies: BC comment on RyC "working model"
by Philip Sheppard Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

Please find attached BC comments on the proposed grouping of WHOIS studies. We hope what can become essentially a friendly amendment. Philip

2 1

ICANN to Convene Consultations on Registry/Registrar Report
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

Please note: ICANN to Convene Consultations on Registry/Registrar Report Updated to include reference to the availability of remote participation 9 December 2008 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

Drafting Team for 'Public Participation' Letter to ICANN Board.
by Adrian Kinderis Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

All, In today's GNSO wrap up session a number of folks voiced their dissatisfaction with the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted. This dissatisfaction centred around the lack of time made available for the public to engage the ICANN Board during the ONLY time that is dedicated to this on the Meeting schedule, especially during this incredibly busy and important time. There were also a number of other issues, such as the inadequate mechanisms for public participation, that has prompted Avri to suggest a letter be drafted expressing these views and that this letter be sent to the ICANN Board. To this end I would like to hear from those that would like to participate in joining a small Drafting Team to get the letter drafted in advance of the Mexico Meeting. Please respond to the list and we can take it from there... Thanks. Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com<http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

4 4

20 Nov Council call - staff response to Afilias RSEP question
by Liz Gasster Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

Kristina and all, At the last GNSO Council meeting, during the discussion on the issues report on registration abuse provisions, Kristina Rosette asked whether Afilias was required to use the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) to implement their anti-abuse policy or whether Afilias could have implemented it unilaterally. Following is staff's response to that question: Afilias contacted ICANN about their proposed anti-abuse policy and following a review of the RSEP and their Registry Agreement, ICANN staff determined that the proposed anti-abuse policy did not require a modification to the Registry-Registrar Agreement (RRA) which is part of the Registry Agreement. It should be noted, however, that the RSEP is required for all registry services as defined in the Registry Agreement. It is also worth noting that Afilias implemented their Abusive Use Policy pursuant to section 3.5.2 of their Registry-Registrar Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/info/appendix-08-08dec06.htm>, which allows Afilias to require registrars to comply with: "operational standards, policies, procedures, and practices for the Registry TLD established from time to time by Afilias in a non-arbitrary manner and applicable to all registrars, including affiliates of Afilias, and consistent with ICANN's standards, policies, procedures, and practices and Afilias' Registry Agreement with ICANN." Please let us know if you have further questions. Thanks, Liz

1 0