February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Fast Flux DNS
by Mike Rodenbaugh April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Hello, I propose the following motion for Council consideration in our next meeting on March 7th, may I please have a 'second'? Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website; Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/ Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries, Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies The GNSO Council RESOLVES: ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.

4 5

draft bylaws amendment on absentee voting
by Liz Gasster March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

All, Attached please find a draft bylaws amendment on absentee voting, developed by our drafting team (Philip, Chuck and Robin), with invaluable help from Dan Halloran, for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions. Liz Gasster

3 2

ICANN Draft Translation Programme open for public comment
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 29, 2008

Feb. 29, 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] Please note the ICANN Translation Programme is open for public comment. http://www.icann.org/public_comment/ Open: 13 Feb 08 Closed: 14 Mar 08 Explanation: The draft translation programme that will be used by ICANN to communicate and interact with non-English speakers has been put out for community comment today. You can review it here in: ??????? | ?? | Français | English | Español | ??????? The programme has two main aims: to inform people about ICANN as an organisation, including its history, processes, component parts and evolution; and to allow people to participate effectively in the organisations ongoing decision-making and policy work. The mission of the programme is to provide those who are not fluent English speakers with an equal level of access to influence and participate in the work of the organisation. Following community input, the programme will be redrafted as necessary and put into a Final Report. The intention at this stage is to send the programme to the Board for review and/or approval at the Paris meeting in June. A full transcript of the public meeting held in New Delhi on Wed 13 Feb regarding this programme is also available. Please submit comments to: translation-programme(a)icann.org The archive of public comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/translation-programme/ -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Improvements Report 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 29, 2008

Feb. 29, 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] Please note that the GNSO Improvements Report 2008 is open for public comments from 25 February 2008 to 25 March 2008 http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gnso-improvements-report-2008 GNSO Improvements Report 2008 Explanation: On February 15, 2008, ICANN's Board acknowledged receipt of the "GNSO Improvements Report" and indicated that it would like to receive final public comments on the Report to enable it to consider and implement the Report's recommendations as soon as possible. The Board has directed ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. A copy of the Board's resolution regarding this matter can be found here. http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm You can read the full report here [PDF, 197K] http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… and see a web page with more information here. http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/ The ICANN Board Governance Committee's "GNSO Review Working Group" http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/ developed the Report's http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… set of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. The Report reflects the Working Group's examination of many aspects of the GNSO's functioning, including the use of working groups and the overall policy development process (PDP), and the structure of the GNSO Council and its constituencies. The Board Governance Committee determined that the GNSO Improvements working group had fulfilled its charter and forwarded the report to the Board for consideration." Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Denise Michel | More information please Please submit comments to: [gnso-improvements-report-2008[at]icann.org] Archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/ Please take the time to comment. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Makes Presentation to Midterm Review Public Meeting
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 29, 2008

Feb. 29, 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/announcements/announcement-28feb08.htm ICANN Makes Presentation to Midterm Review Public Meeting Now is the time to start planning transition 28 February 2008 WASHINGTON, DC: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers made its presentation on the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between itself and the United States Department of Commerce at a public meeting held today in Washington, DC. "I think that after almost 10 years of experience of this model the question before us is very stark: Are we going to complete the White Paper’s vision of private sector management of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers? I believe the overwhelming view from virtually all participants is that transition is the goal and the interest is in settling how we get there," ICANN Chair Peter Dengate Thrush said. Today’s public meeting was held to discuss the written submissions that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration had received during its recently concluded public comment period on the JPA between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN. The JPA was signed in September 2006, is due to conclude in September 2009 and was scheduled for a Midterm Review at this point. In his presentation the Chairman said he would ask the President’s Strategy Committee to outline a plan for developing this transition framework. They will meet in April and make a first presentation involving the community, starting a process for further engagement with the community at the ICANN meeting in Paris in June. The process will be guided by the input ICANN has received so far from its own consultations, and the analysis of the comments surveyed in this Review. "The U.S. government has been and remains a staunch advocate for an Internet that is based on values of freedom, enterprise and crucially coordination — not control. Now, there are final steps to be taken to make this a reality and to celebrate an enlightened U.S. policy under two administrations to transition to private sector management of the domain name system. "We all now need to work together over the 18 months remaining in the JPA to finalize the model for the long term," Dengate Thrush said. The complete statement to the public meeting is available on the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/jpa/presentation-to-jpa-midterm-review-public-meeting-… [PDF, 201K]. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Election Procedures for ICANN Board Director - Seat 14
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The voting for the ICANN Board Director to fill seat 14 will start tomorrow, Friday, 29 February 2008 at 15:00 UTC and close on Friday, 7 March 2008 at 15:00 UTC. The results will be confirmed at the GNSO Council meeting on 27 March 2008 at 19:00 UTC. http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2008.shtml There is one candidate, Rita Rodin. Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot. The ballots will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address and will come from tally(a)icann.org, so please check your spam filters! Please follow the detailed instructions and return the ballot to the e-mail address stated in the ballot. It is the same procedure that was used for the GNSO Council chair vote. All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. All matters pertaining to the elections should be sent to the separate mailing list created for the purpose of managing elections going forward. This list will include the ALAC and GAC liaisons to the Council and the GNSO Secretariat. This list name is <gnso-elections(a)icann.org> and archives will be posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-elections/ following the conclusion of the election. Messages posted to the list should be treated as confidential until the end of the elections. The GNSO Secretariat may, however, disclose them to the General Counsel's office to the extent appropriate to obtain advice about how to handle procedural problems that arise during the voting process. The Council list should continue to be used for normal policy development work. The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at the Council meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008. Once that occurs, the GNSO Secretariat will prepare and post a full record of all voting, including how each member voted in each round. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm) Article VI, section 8.4, the GNSO should give notice of its selection no later than five months after the Annual General Meeting in 2007, which will be 2 April 2008. Let me know if you have any questions or issues with the ballots. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording of GNSO Council interview with Rita Rodin 28 February 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 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 and constituency interview with Rita Rodin, candidate for ICANN Board Director, seat # 14, held on February 28, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20080228%20.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Opens Comment Period on Proposed Add Grace Period Modifications for NeuStar and Afilias
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 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/announcements/announcement-27feb08.htm ICANN Opens Comment Period on Proposed Add Grace Period Modifications for NeuStar and Afilias 27 February 2008 ICANN is today opening public comment periods on requests submitted by NeuStar, the .BIZ registry, and Afilias, the .INFO registry, to modify terms regarding the add grace period (AGP) in their respective registry agreements. On 5 February 2008, NeuStar and Afilias submitted separate but similar requests through the Registry Services Evaluation Process to modify the AGP in their respective TLDs in order “to address the excessive delete problem” (i.e. domain tasting) in .BIZ and .INFO. Currently there are no limitations on the number of deletions that a registrar can process and receive a refund during the five-day AGP. The proposed service would limit the number of AGP deletions where a registrar could receive a full registration fee credit each month: either 50 per month or 10% of that registrar’s net new monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater. A registrar would be permitted to delete as many names as it wished during the five-day AGP, receiving credit throughout the month. However, at the end of the .BIZ or .INFO normal monthly billing cycle the Registrar’s account would be debited for the full value of the domain name registrations that exceeded the month’s set threshold. As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html) ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination to determine whether the proposed modifications might raise significant security or stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposed modifications by NeuStar and Afilias do not raise such issues. The next step in evaluation is that (because implementation of the proposals would require changes to the .BIZ and .INFO Registry Agreements) ICANN will post the proposed amendments, solicit public comment and refer the proposals to the ICANN Board for consideration. A copy of the proposed NeuStar amendment is available here [PDF, 25K], and a copy of the proposed Afilias amendment is available here [PDF, 25K]. Both amendments provide for changes to Appendix 7, Section 3.1.1. Comments on the NeuStar amendment submitted to neustar-agp-proposal(a)icann.org will be considered until 23:59 UTC 28 March 2008 and may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/neustar-agp-proposal/. Comments on the Afilias amendment submitted to afilias-agp-proposal(a)icann.org will be considered until 23:59 UTC 28 March 2008 and may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/afilias-agp-proposal/. Please keep in mind that these are separate proposals with separate public comment forums. All documentation regarding the NeuStar proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/submitted_app.html#2008001, while documentation on the Afilias proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/submitted_app.html#2008002 -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Thanks Tim, your analysis is right on. I also hope for a clear answer from Jeff, whose comments purported to represent the Registry Constituency, and also from ICANN Counsel. -Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:29 AM To: Neuman,Jeff Cc: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow Jeff, Yes, that was a very good non-answer, and that fact that it is a non-answer concerns me. Seriously, this is a critical issue to understand the gTLD operators view on. If the registries believe that a consensus of Internet stakeholders is only valid if gTLD operators are included as stakeholders and not that they necessarily have to agree with the policy for it to be considered a consensus policy, then it's pretty cool that you got that actually stated in your contract with the ICANN. But if the registries believe that their contracts with ICANN require agreement of the gTLD operators on an issue in order for consensus to exist on that issue, then the rest of the stakeholders in this game are operating on very mis-guided assumptions - little things like fairness and equal consideration of our views. So which is it? And Avri, I hope we get a quick answer from ICANN Counsel on their opinion of this. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Tue, February 26, 2008 8:25 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org> Tim, I know this is going to sound like a non-answer to your question, but the only thing I am going to say at this point is that there were a number of tradeoffs made by the registries in the new agreements (whether for .com, .biz, .info, etc.) that were made. ICANN insisted on this new definition of Consensus Policies (as opposed to the old definition in the 2001 agreements - which by the way the 2001 agreements mirror your registrar accreditation agreement). In the new definition for registries (but not registrars), there is no longer a voting requirement for consensus policies and there are less protections for the registries (unlike the 2001 agreements). In addition, we lost the indemnity protections we used to have. In exchange, we wanted to make sure that gTLD Registries were included as key players in determining what consensus policies were, especially where we were the most impacted by the policy changes. We wanted to avoid situations (like this almost became), where the Council disregarded the opinions of the registries and came up with policies without adequate consultation or analysis of the impacts of the new policies/solutions on the registries. I hope that gives you some insight. And I know if ICANN changed (or wanted to change) the definition of "Consensus Policies" in the registrar agreements like it did for the registry agreements, you would be just as vigilant as we are being. Getting to the matter at hand, I think making sure the process is right and the community has adequate time to respond to the actual solution being presented will go a long way. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:29 AM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow Alan, It isn't the registry that has to worry about fraud. It's the registrar (they are consumer facing). There is no registry without an AGP that we deal with that makes any provision for fraud. We (the registrar) just eat it. If that extends to the gTLD registries with whom accredited registrars do most of their business, it will increase fraud costs considerably. I can't comment for my constituency yet on Jeff's proposal, but personally it looks acceptable with one exception, and I agree with the 21 day comment period. The exception is with the reporting. The identity of the registrar should be revealed only to ICANN in the registry report and not made public unless ICANN determines that the exception granted was not within policy. But I do have a question for Jeff and Chuck. Jeff quoted section 3.1(b)(iv) of the .com agreement which says: "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs." That same sentence is in the .biz and .info agreements as well (and probably others). I'm confused by the thread that followed the comments that included that quote. Jeff and Chuck, is it either of your opinions that the quote above means that in order for consensus to exist it must include the consensus agreement of the gTLD operators? Or Jeff, were you intending to point out that a consensus of Internet stakeholders was only valid if gTLD operators were included as stakeholders but not that they necessarily have to agree with the policy? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Mon, February 25, 2008 5:14 pm To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Jeff, as you have pointed out, many registries do not have an AGP. Presumably they have developed other cost-effective mechanisms to address fraud and other legitimate AGP-type applications. That being said, if we can use the existing AGP-mechanisms for those registries that already have them, and still eliminate the more unsavory uses, I can readily support it. Alan At 25/02/2008 09:41 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >Avri, > >If there is a truly a consensus policy to get rid of the AGP, then how >are the registries going to offer a refund service on an objective basis >without a highly manual process costing much more than a $6.42 cents per >domain name. In other words, the only system of refunds that would not >dramatically increase the costs of provisioning domain names for >registries and registrars is an automated grace period. > >I believe "market forces" are what led to the Add-Grace Period in the >first place. In addition, "market forces" are what led to NeuStar and >Afilias' proposal. However, if there is a consensus policy to get rid >of the AGP, then in essence, we are taking market forces out of the >equation. > > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & > >Business Development > >NeuStar, Inc. >e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On >Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:22 AM >To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow > > >Hi, > >I cannot make the meeting tomorrow, I have one of my rare, these days >anyway, paying jobs (IGF) and will be busy all week. So I figured I >would send a note indicating my personal point of view in this issue. > > From a personal point of view, I wonder if doing away with the grace >period is not the right thing to do. This would leave it up to the >registries as to what sort of refund service they provide to the >registrars in this matter. I was asked a question during the ND >meeting which went something like: " Why is this not left up to >_Market Forces_. For example, credit card companies charge stores a >small fee for each refund they are forced to make to a customer. If >the store is responsible for a lot of refunds, then the fee goes up. >And if the store causes too many then they lose their account ..." >Now I do not consider myself an expert on _Market Forces_ or on how >and when they work, but the question seemed like a good one. One I >was not able to answer. I am not currently a supporter of this, so >am not arguing for it at this point. I just wonder if this option has >been explored sufficiently. > >In terms of the current somewhat compromise motion, if the DT >continues to have a majority in favor of sending it as a >recommendation to the council, I personally would prefer to see it go >out for, at least, updating of constituency statements, and perhaps >public comment, before the council votes on it, and would support the >Drafting Team coming to such a recommendation. > >Likewise, I think that constituting an open WG on a 120 days schedule >to review the issue and make a recommendation would also be something >I could support. For this we would need a very tight and specific >charter. The DT could recommend such a charter, or it could be >developed in another way. > >Thanks and best wishes for a peaceful and productive meeting > >a.

1 0

FW: ICANN travel funding
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Fyi. -----Original Message----- From: michel.denise(a)gmail.com [mailto:michel.denise@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Denise Michel Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:00 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Subject: Re: ICANN travel funding No funds were set aside for GNSO Council travel support to Paris and there currently are no plans to provide support. Regards, Denise On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mxrodenbaugh(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Denise, > > > > When should we expect to learn about ICANN travel funding for Paris? I > know > many folks are already planning their trips and it is a very busy time in > Paris. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072

2 1

Agenda, Guidelines & Questions for Interview with Rita Today
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

The attached document contains the following: * An agenda for our interview with Rita * An outline and guidelines for the interview process * A listing of the advance questions received in the planned order they will be asked. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of this but there were several late submissions. Also, I believe that in most if not all cases the questions were sent directly to Rita. Please let me know if I missed any questions that were sent or if you have any questions or comments about the planned process. 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."

1 0

GNSO Council interview
by Norbert Klein Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Dear Rita, I deeply apologize for being late in presenting a long standing problem now at the time of the interview, and I would appreciate to get some comments what you think should be done about it on the ICANN Board level – with your active initiative, I would hope. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be on the phone for the discussion. As you are probably aware, there has been almost no support from ICANN, as an institution, for the travel costs of members of the GNSO Council members to participate in ICANN meetings. The GNSO Council has discussed repeatedly – as far as I remember at least since the Wellington meetings – the need to secure funding support for transportation and hotel costs for the members of the Council to assist them in fulfilling their roles in attending meetings, as is done for Board members, NomCom appointees, and certain persons in ALAC. This has also been raised in various ways with ICANN. In the period leading up to the New Delhi meetings this had led to official communication from the GNSO Council chairperson, on behalf of the Council, to the ICANN CEO and others. Very late, transportation support only was made available for New Delhi. That was the first time that ICANN made available any travel support for GNSO Council participation in any ICANN meeting. Unfortunately, it seems that some members of the GNSO Council were still not able to participate in the New Delhi meeting because the support was only for air ticket, and because the decision was announced so late. The GNSO Council again raised the problem, and on 13 February 2008, a special ICANN “Workshop: Discussion on ICANN Travel Expense Support Funding” was held at the New Delhi meeting. (Unfortunately, I could not participate in it.) However, the GNSO Council has still not received an official notification of any decision about the issue. Mike Rodenbaugh, a member of the Council, wrote to ask for a response. I have just now received a copy of a reply by Denise Michel simply responding with one sentence only: “No funds were set aside for GNSO Council travel support to Paris and there currently are no plans to provide support.” As you know, the GNSO Council is a formally constituted body within the ICANN structure, and performs important functions. It is not only unfair but counter-productive to refuse to support the participation of GNSO Council members in meetings, while other bodies contributing to ICANN's work are supported. I would like to know how you intend to help to solve this problem, and also how you could help to improve communication between the Board, the staff, and the GNSO Council more broadly. I consider this case as a serious example where present ICANN practice – in spite of several attempts to rectify the situation – needs improvement. I would also like to use this occasion to raise my concerns about the way in which ICANN resources for travel are handled. Below is some background material which shows that the administrative handling of my New Delhi travel arrangements did neither care to economize ICANN resources nor demonstrate any understanding of how to handle travel arrangements in a flexible way. Furthermore, as I heard, some participants supported by Fellowship Funding were forced to travel back before the end of the meetings, in order to meet some ICANN travel agency convenience, after hundreds or more than one thousand dollars had been spent to bring those persons to Delhi. I would therefore also appreciate to know how you would assist that ICANN use its resources more wisely. Squeezing meeting participants into imposed schedules is an obstacle to their fulfilling their tasks – surely members of the ICANN Board would not tolerate this for themselves. I propose that it is urgent that ICANN authorize, in principle, that supported travelers can make their own travel arrangements and purchase their own tickets if those would be cheaper than tickets provided by ICANN. This would allow meeting participants to mesh ICANN travel with other obligations and choose the travel dates according to their own requirements. Thanks for your attention, I look forward to your response, With my best greetings, still from Cambodia, Norbert Klein Member of the GNSO Council = = = Attachments: Background information on how my ICANN travel administration was handled: In order to prepare my participation in the 8-9/10-15 February 2008 New Delhi meetings, I made an early inquiry with a local travel agent, knowing that ticket prices are different according to the time of booking, with considerably cheaper tickets available in the case of early bookings. On 11 January 2008, I sent in the dates and flight numbers I had received from the agent, and I added the following information on the form I had received: “As this is the time close to the Chinese New Year, when it is difficult to get seats, I have made tentative bookings as stated above. I have made no firm bookings, just reserved the seats. If I had been authorized to make early payments, the price would have been US$535. If I would be authorized to buy the tickets here, the price would now be US$590 (subject to daily revision).” To my great surprise I received the following response from the ICANN travel service: “Fare is now USD 2,577.70 no lower fares available. Please review the tentative itinerary below for changes or approval to ticket. You have 72 hours from the time of receipt of this email to respond, otherwise your tentative flight reservation will automatically get canceled. . . PENALTY FARE REMARKS THIS IS AN ADVANCED PURCHASE NONRFUNDABLE FARE. ANY CHANGES MAY RESULT IN A HIGHER FARE AND CHANGE FEE...” The dates and flight numbers ICANN offered were for exactly the same airline and flight dates and flight numbers. After receiving this information, I contacted immediately the travel agent again: the ticket price was by now increased to $695 (but changeable without additional payments and refundable) and still available, if I would purchase it early in the week. Therefore I asked ICANN: 1) to be authorized to buy my ticket here for US$695.00 (for later reimbursement), and 2) to receive the difference between the two prices quoted ($2,577.70 minus $695.00), that is 1,882.70, towards covering hotel costs in New Delhi. = To point 2) I received no response or reaction. To point 1) the response was still not “Thanks - we are happy that you help to save ICANN money, so you can buy a flexible, if necessary reroutable and refundable ticket for US$695 which you said is available through your agent” - but I got offered instead the following: “Subject: Re: ICANN GNSO - Group 3356 - PAX NAME: Klein ***Response is Required ASAP*** Date: Tuesday, 15 January 2008 Please see another option for you, fare for this itinerary would be $861.10. MH 755B 08FEB F PNHKUL HK1 1110A 200P MH 190B 08FEB F KULDEL HK1 640P 950P MH 191H 15FEB F DELKUL HK1 1110P 700A MH 754H 16FEB J KULPNH HK1 925A 1015A” The price of this new ICANN generated option costing of $861.10 was still higher than what I had proposed, and in addition it would return me home to Phnom Penh later. = Only after a protest did I finally got the permission to save ICANN funds; I received this response: “After much research we found that tickets which are issued in countries with 'soft currencies' can be obtained for lower fares in the country of origin... Therefore I have obtained authorization for you to purchase your ticket in the amount of $695.00US and ICANN will reimburse you.” So after much effort I was allowed to buy a flexible ticket for $695, instead of a less convenient and less flexible one for $861.10 or for $2,577.70 To this day I have still not received any reply to my request that I use the $1,882.70 saved on my ticket for hotel instead. As the ICANN travel service informed me, my cheap ticket was possible because “tickets which are issued in countries with 'soft currencies' can be obtained for lower fares in the country of origin.” I wonder who in the ICANN administration has, in the meantime, taken the initiative to check how many members of the ICANN Board, of the NomCom appointees, of the ALAC members, or of the recipients of the ICANN Fellowship travel grants live in 'soft currency' countries, and how ICANN can save funds according to the proportion of $535 to $2,577.70. I am aware that ICANN has in the past budgeted over $7,000 per person per event (although, as mentioned above, still nothing is budgeted for GNSO Council members). And I wonder if the ICANN administration, bound to observe economic wisdom and the ICANN “Frameworks and Principles on Accountability and Transparency”, will from now on authorize that supported travelers can purchase their tickets early and get them re-imbursed, if they are cheaper than the non-changeable and more expensive tickets. Norbert Klein Member of the GNSO Council

1 0

RE: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Adrian, I don't completely agree. If we take your view to the full extent then what is the GNSO doing electing any Board members at all? Or the ccNSO, etc. I think it is at least fair to understand what if any views a candidate may have going into it. I'd like to at least know what bias one way or the other, if any, may exist. And also, just how well informed or familiar he/she is with subject matter. This is not your typical board election process. We are not shareholders in a real sense. And there is no process by which a Board member can be removed save not reelecting them at the end of their term. I think the questions are fair. Your concerns get more to what each one of us does with the answers, something we should discuss with our constituents. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita From: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Date: Wed, February 27, 2008 9:09 pm To: "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, I am a little confused as to the purpose of the call with Rita. Is it merely an opportunity for us to lobby our personal issues with Rita in the hope that she will push them on the Board or is it about understanding how she will act a an effective conduit as the GNSO representative on the Board? I would have thought the later. Unless, of course, this is a presidential election where we are voting for the candidate's policies and not the candidate. I personally don't want to make her feel that she has to respond positively to such requests otherwise risk not being voted in. Surely, we need her to ensure she will be making herself available at every opportunity to hear the "collective" of the GNSO Council and ensure that the topics that mean something to us are rightfully and appropriately managed with respect to the Board. Finding out what Rita thinks about a personal gripe or position I have doesn't help me understand whether she will take a "collective" view to the Board and how she will be a good representative. The GNSO Council is about consensus and managing views, not lobbying one Board member to push one view (or am I wrong!?). Just my thoughts and forgive me if they are misplaced. Regards, Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry International 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 Web: 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.

5 6

RE: AW: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Thanks Tom and Adrian. I've given this a lot thought, reviewed my questions, and prefer not to withdraw them. If this is just going to be a job interview, then I'm not really interested in the excercise. My first question does not interject any specific viewpoint. There are a wide range of views on the Council regarding the extent to which "prior rights" should be considered in policy matters. But the fact is that it is has been and will continue to be a contentious area in many policy matters we consider. I think it's fair to solicit the views/position on it of any Board candidate the Council is considering. My second question uses as an example an issue where the Council's view are already well known. Regardless of how things come out on that specifically, I think there is a bigger picture issue that we need to be thinking about - how to resolve issues that do not neatly fit into one SO cubby hole or another. Avri's question gets to the very core of what the GNSO is all about. I am keenly interested in knowing the position on that of any candidate the Council is going to be putting on the Board. Finally, the Council put forward one candidate, the incumbent. We all must be fairly satisified with her work and conduct on the Board or we'd have been scrambling to find other candidates. So it's understandable why some of our questions may hit more directly on specific issues. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita From: "Thomas Keller" <tom(a)1und1.de> Date: Thu, February 28, 2008 3:07 am To: "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "'Chuck Gomes'" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I think Adrian touched on a very good point. As I already indicated I will not be to join the call but I agree that the questions should not be on any specific policy topics that we have on our plate right now (and who knows what will come up in the future) but rather on how the interaction between the GNSO and its representative on the Board will be and what our expectations are in this regard. Best, tom -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Februar 2008 06:38 An: Tim Ruiz Cc: Chuck Gomes; Council GNSO Betreff: RE: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita Tim, I see it similar to the role that we perform for the Registrar Constituency. We have many diverse views that we must represent. It is our job to ensure that those views are represented (that in itself is the challenge) and that we put forward a collective opinion when possible. I wasn't chosen to represent the RC because of my views on tasting or transfers. Moreover, that I would put successfully forward the views of my Constituents. I believe we should expect the same for Rita. My questions would be more the following; 1. Rita, you have been ill and away from occasional phone calls and recent ICANN meetings, do you expect this to continue? 2. I would like to see a regular (monthly) report from our representative on Board issues and where she stands on them (potentially with time allotted on calls and in meetings) 3. I would like to see our representative present at our "Council days" at ICANN meetings (where Board commitments permit). And then more specifically; 4. How can we better progress outstanding issues (domain tasting, transfers GNSO reform etc) with the Board? 5. How can we better communicate (through you?) to the Board to get them to understand these issues and their importance? 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 Web: www.ausregistrygroup.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. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2008 3:42 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Chuck Gomes; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita Adrian, I don't completely agree. If we take your view to the full extent then what is the GNSO doing electing any Board members at all? Or the ccNSO, etc. I think it is at least fair to understand what if any views a candidate may have going into it. I'd like to at least know what bias one way or the other, if any, may exist. And also, just how well informed or familiar he/she is with subject matter. This is not your typical board election process. We are not shareholders in a real sense. And there is no process by which a Board member can be removed save not reelecting them at the end of their term. I think the questions are fair. Your concerns get more to what each one of us does with the answers, something we should discuss with our constituents. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita From: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Date: Wed, February 27, 2008 9:09 pm To: "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, I am a little confused as to the purpose of the call with Rita. Is it merely an opportunity for us to lobby our personal issues with Rita in the hope that she will push them on the Board or is it about understanding how she will act a an effective conduit as the GNSO representative on the Board? I would have thought the later. Unless, of course, this is a presidential election where we are voting for the candidate's policies and not the candidate. I personally don't want to make her feel that she has to respond positively to such requests otherwise risk not being voted in. Surely, we need her to ensure she will be making herself available at every opportunity to hear the "collective" of the GNSO Council and ensure that the topics that mean something to us are rightfully and appropriately managed with respect to the Board. Finding out what Rita thinks about a personal gripe or position I have doesn't help me understand whether she will take a "collective" view to the Board and how she will be a good representative. The GNSO Council is about consensus and managing views, not lobbying one Board member to push one view (or am I wrong!?). Just my thoughts and forgive me if they are misplaced. Regards, Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry International 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 Web: 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.

1 0

Reminder: Questions for Rita
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

I want to remind everyone to send any questions you have for Rita in advance if possible. To allow time for me to organize them, please send them to me today. You may also send them directly to Rita or, if you prefer, I will send them as a group to her. Our interview with her is scheduled for 19:00 UTC tomorrow. 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."

2 1

Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 27, 2008

Feb. 27, 2008

Rita and Chuck, Sorry for the late submission. Also, it looks like I may not be able to make the call tomorrow, but will certianly be on if at all possible. I have two questions: The ICANN Staff recently submitted to the Council a synthesis on single-character names at the second level. One of the auction methods it states as having been suggested is "managed or qualified auction for those with prior rights." While the synthesis only makes this single mention of prior rights, it is likely to become a much bigger issue. What is your view or position regarding prior rights claims to single-character names at the second level? There is likely to be ongoing policy work regarding the allocation of "IDN ccTLDs." Any resultant policy will have a significant impact on both the gTLD and ccTLD communities. In your view, is this an example of a need for a cross-SO policy development process? In your view, is a cross-SO process reasonable to consider given the evolving nature of the Internet? Thanks, Tim

2 1

ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level
by Patrick Jones Feb. 27, 2008

Feb. 27, 2008

Prior to the Delhi meeting I advised the Council that staff was preparing a paper on single-character domain names at the second-level. The attached ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Domain Names at the Second-Level is being sent to the Council for information and discussion. Staff is working on engagement of a qualified entity or entities to assist with additional process development for various auction needs. Further information will be provided to the community and the Council. In the meantime, could you place this paper on the schedule near the end of the Council meeting for discussion on 6 March? Regards, Patrick Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones(a)icann.org<mailto:patrick.jones@icann.org>

1 0

Advance question for the 28 Feburary call
by Avri Doria Feb. 27, 2008

Feb. 27, 2008

Hi, Due to an employment commitment with the IGF this week, I will not be able to attend the meeting with the council, but do plan to listen to the recording after the meeting. I am therefore directing my question to you by email, though I request that Chuck, who will chair that meeting, ask it of you at the proper time. My question relates to the improvements casting the GNSO council, as a management body instead of a 'legislative body.' One of the concerns that I wrote of in the public comment period, has not really been alleviated by the last report. This concerns the distinction between policy management as an administrative function and policy management as a policy function. If I read the current proposal correctly, the council must pass on recommendations from Working Groups as long as they followed the (to be developed) process correctly - even if, in the consensus view of the council, the recommendation is a really bad idea. I think this relegates the GNSO council to a purely administrative body and not a policy body. At the very least, I believe the council should be able to reject a policy recommendation if there is a supermajority against it (same rules as apply to the Board vis a vis a GNSO council supermajority PDP decision). I would like to know your position regarding my concern. Thanks a.

2 1

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 6 March 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 27, 2008

Feb. 27, 2008

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 6 March 2008 This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 - see below for local times (11:00 Los Angeles, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 London, 20:00 Brussels, 06:00 Melbourne, next day) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 minutes. Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members. Item 0: Roll call of Council members (5 mins) Item 1: Update any statements of interest (5 mins) Item 2: Review/amend agenda (5 mins) Item 3: Update from Denise Michel on Board activities (15 mins) Item 4: IDNC update - Edmon Chung (10 mins) Item 5: Report from Domain Name Tasting Design Team (20 mins) - motion to be posted on Wiki Item 6: Discuss Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS (20 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04732.html Item 7: Proposed motion requesting an Issues Report on "fast flux DNS" changes - Mike Rodenbaugh (10 mins) Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website; Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/ Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries, Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies The GNSO Council RESOLVES: ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes. Item 8: Update on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP (5 mins) Item 9: Update on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy future PDPs (5 mins) Item 10: Discuss status of draft Bylaws amendment on absentee voting (5 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/absentee-voting-bylaw-amendment-15feb08.pdf Item 11: Action Item Review (5 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf Item 12: AOB (11:00 Los Angeles, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 London, 20:00 Brussels, 06:00 Melbourne, next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 19:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8-0DST 11:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 14:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-2+1DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 19:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Oslo, Norway (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Amman, Jordan UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Phnom Penh, Cambodia UTC+7+0DST 02:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 03:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 03:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+1DST 06:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2008, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Report on public suggestions of further studies of WHOIS
by Liz Gasster Feb. 26, 2008

Feb. 26, 2008

All, You may recall that when the GNSO Council decided last October in LA to terminate the pending PDP on WHOIS, you also decided to solicit public opinions about the types of future studies that might be conducted on WHOIS, to inform future policy development. You may also recall that the 31 October resolution asks staff to prepare a summary of the submissions received (amended to request by February 25), and the Council would then provide additional definition regarding potential data gathering and study requirements. Staff would then provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies as requested by the Council. Based on those cost estimates, the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council. The public comment period closed on 15 February, and attached is a summary and analysis of the public comments we received (25 total) that I've compiled with the considerable help of an expert consultant, Lorrie Faith Cranor. Dr. Cranor is a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon U. and an expert researcher on Internet privacy, security and related issues, and we are fortunate to have her expertise to review and collate study suggestions. As you consider next steps, I do want to point out that in the attached summary, we have grouped proposed studies according to the following topic areas: 1. WHOIS misuse 2. Compliance with data protection laws and registrar accreditation agreements 3. Availability of privacy services 4. Demand and motivation for use of privacy services 5. Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute resolution requests 7. WHOIS data accuracy You may find it useful to first consider which of the groupings address questions you think that having data about would inform the debate. Once you have identified which questions you want to answer, then you could focus on only those particular groupings and consider which study approach (or combination of approaches) will best answer your questions. In some cases Lorrie has indicated that the different studies answer slightly different questions. In some cases she indicates that some of the approaches are likely to give better data, or that some of the approaches are likely to be less expensive. When you think about the fundamental questions asked by each grouping, you may find it more useful to consider the questions asked by each grouping as follows: 1. How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be solved? 2. Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws problem that needs to be solved? 3. Are there already market-driven solutions available? 4. Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they being used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? 5. Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse? 6. Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective? 7. Is WHOIS data accurate? I note also that several of the proposed studies are being recommended to address questions of WHOIS accuracy and compliance and I have also shared this summary with ICANN's compliance director and deputy general counsel. They may have further views that we will share as appropriate. Lastly, if you would find it useful, Dr. Cranor can be available to participate in an upcoming call to discuss the report and answer questions. Thanks, Liz

2 1

Interview with Rita
by Avri Doria Feb. 26, 2008

Feb. 26, 2008

Hi, For those, like me, who cannot make the interview with Rita, but who have questions, I suggest that we send Rita our question(s), with a copy to the Council. And then leave it up to Chuck to slot the question in wherever he thinks it fits. Does this seem OK to others? thanks a.

2 1

Rita Rodin's Candidate Statement
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 25, 2008

Feb. 25, 2008

Dear All, Rita Rodin's candidate statement for the ICANN Board seat 14 is posted on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/index.html http://gnso.icann.org/elections/index.html Rita will be interviewed on Thursday 28 February 2008 at 19:00 UTC. Let me know if you would like the call details to join the call. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 25, 2008

Feb. 25, 2008

Thanks Liz. In response to this report four months ago, the Council essentially voted to handle these terms of reference itself, rather than form a Task Force to do so. I believe we did this because a majority felt we had enough evidence about the effects, judged that the effects justify measures be taken to impede domain tasting, and had much information about potential impacts of various resolutions but also would get Constituency Impact statements about such potential impacts. We then got those Impact Statements. The Council then voted to have an open, volunteer design team to suggest next steps, and that team unanimously recommended a measure designed to impede domain tasting -- which the Council should be deliberating, if we can get past the process roadblock of the Registries. How did we get here? Here's a brief history of the ICANN process wrt to domain tasting, and specifically wrt to the 'excess delete fee' resolution: PIR request to SSAC in March 2006, http://www.pir.org/PDFs/SSAC-ICANN_ORG_Tasting_3-26-06.pdf Sept. 2006, PIR proposal to implement 'excess delete fee service'. Nov. 2006 the ICANN Board: Resolved, (06.84), the President and the General Counsel are authorized to enter into an amendment of the .ORG Registry Agreement to implement the proposed excess deletion fee service At least five ICANN public meetings and workshops on the domain tasting issue, links to full transcripts of those meeting are at this page, http://public.icann.org/issues/domain-name-tasting: * 27 June 2006: Domain tasting workshop * 6 December 2006: Domain name marketplace. * 25 March 2007: How the Marketplace for Expiring Names Has Changed * 25 March 2007: Domain name secondary market * 24 June 2007: Domain tasting tutorial June 2007, PIR implements excess deletion fee, tasting immediately and drastically reduced in .org June 2007: In response to ALAC request and GNSO vote, ICANN staff prepared an issues paper on domain tasting, which discussed the PIR implementation of the excess delete fee. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun 07.pdf. The report also shows the ICANN General Counsel's opinion that policy development wrt to domain tasting is "within scope of the ICANN policy process and within scope of the GNSO." This report also had a public comment period. June 2007, GNSO voted to form a working group to examine the facts and recommend further action, with a report created in October 2007: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final ..pdf. The working group contained reps from all Constituencies and from other stakeholders. Their consensus report included discussion of excess delete fee (including PIR's implementation), suggestion of it as a potential resolution, and documented the widespread community discussion about it as a resolution. This report included much public input both via an open questionnaire, and also one designed by the Intellectual Property Constituency for trademark owners. October 2007, GNSO voted to move forward with the PDP by requesting Constituency Impact Statements with respect to the information and proposed resolutions contained in the Outcomes report, including the excess delete fee. GNSO rejected option of forming a Task Force, deciding instead that the issue was ripe for Council deliberation and resolution. BC, NCUC, ALAC and Registrars Constituency each give view on excess delete fees. The statements are incorporated in the "Initial Report" http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-initial-report-domain-tasti ng-07jan08.pdf, which had a public comment period. November 2007, GNSO voted to form a 'design team' to review all the reports and public comments, and recommend next steps in the PDP. January 2008, Design Team of 3 Councilors and ALAC Advisor unanimously agreed on proposed Council resolution recommending excess delete fee for all registries with an AGP, which is the same proposal put forth by Afilias and Neustar for .info and .biz. The Design Team finds this the most reasonable and potentially achievable compromise among the various options. January 29, 2008, ICANN Board suggests action to address domain tasting: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-29jan08.htm." The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is looking to effectively end domain tasting with a proposal to start charging the annual ICANN fee on registrar domain registrations." It is unclear whether this will actually become part of the ICANN budget beginning July, 2008. February 2008, Registries filibuster substantive Council deliberation by arguing there has not been enough process to address the proposed Council resolution. Registry Constituency representative argues that any Council resolution could not become Consensus Policy unless the Registries Constituency agrees to the resolution. Respectfully submitted, Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:47 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Rosette, Kristina; Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion All, The three draft terms of reference that were suggested in the October 2007 Domain Tasting Outcomes Report that Chuck refers to below are copied for your reference. Liz 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the potential impacts of various measures on the Constituencies, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:57 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Thanks for the questions Kristina. I attempted to answer them as best I can below with the understanding that what I say is my personal interpretation because I have not cleared it with the RyC. I certainly encourage Jeff as the RyC representative on this WG to confirm or correct anything I say, and I of course will communicate any differences of opinion from RyC members if and when I become aware of any. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Chuck, It would be helpful to me (and perhaps others) if you could provide some clarification of one point made in the RyC constituency statement. Paragraph 3.1.2 states that "The RyC believes that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work for all registries and sponsors. The RyC therefore suggests that consideration of variations of this approach should be evaluated by individual registries and sponsors. It should also be noted that what is successful for one gTLD may not have the same results in another gTLD." Paragraph 3.2.1 indicates that this position has supermajority support within the RYC. I read this paragraph to mean that the RyC will not support a "one-size-fits-all approach." Is that interpretation correct? CG: Yes, but it may be helpful to qualify what I believe the position means. I attempt that below. If it is, I am having difficulty understanding how it is possible for the design team (or the Council, for that matter) to develop any policy, which will inherently be a one-size-fits-all approach", that will have any support from the RyC. (I am excluding "policies" that recommend no action be taken or recommend the status quo, namely, each registry do its own thing.) Is it possible? If so, I would appreciate some clarification. CG: If a policy is proposed that does not take into consideration the differences among registries and sponsors with regard to the AGP and the impacts the proposed policy might have on various registries and sponsors, then it is highly unlikely that the RyC would support the proposed policy. In my opinion though, that does not mean that the RyC would oppose any proposed policy. What I believe we are saying is that any such policy needs to adequately deal with any applicable differences that exist among registries and sponsors. In other words, the policy development process needs to attempt to address any applicable differences that exist among registries and sponsors. If that is done in a reasonable manner, then I do not think that the RyC would oppose any resulting policy recommendations on the basis of the issue of 'one size fits all'. The fact that this did not happen yet should not be taken as a criticism of the 'design team', because I do not believe they were tasked with developing policy but rather, as Avri pointed out, to suggest next steps forward. But, to the extent that the 'design team' takes on a broader role that includes proposing a possible policy, then it is essential that the one-size fits all issue be dealt with. This to me would best be handled by an open working group with clear terms of reference that delineate tasks as those suggested in the Domain Tasting Outcomes Report. Many thanks. K -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 8:51 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion A few corrections and clarifications below Mike. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 3:34 PM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion I would prefer to vote on the proposal ASAP. Council has already decided not to have a Task Force, and had commissioned an open WG already, and has taken Constituency Impact Statements. This proposal has been thoroughly vetted through open process. I see no hope of coming to a solution that RyC will accept, because their position appears to be that ICANN can't make policy that binds them, unless they agree. And they haven't agreed to any policy development the last 3 years, except for newTLDs which will make them more money and Inter-Registrar Transfer which will save them money via less disputes. Seems to me that RyC is again trying to delay policy development for as long as they can, by throwing up bogus arguments about lack of process. CG: The open WG was an information gathering WG. The impact statements were not based on any policy recommendations developed by a PDP. What proposal was "thoroughly vetted"? Certainly not the proposal in the motion. While we won't have a SuperMajority (if indeed we even have a majority), it will be clear why, and the Board can do as it likes. And we can move onto other issues as we will have done our job. I simply have no confidence that 3 more months will produce anything different in the situation we have today. I have lost patience on this issue because the practice is so facially wrong and has garnered almost unanimous antipathy from the non-contracting community, yet Council have spun our wheels endlessly for about a year now, fruitlessly trying to do anything about it. Process like this gives ICANN a bad name. CG: Whether or not you think additional time will produce what you want is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we have a legitimate policy development process. -Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:04 PM To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Avri, Is your question to the ICANN GC on whether the ICANN Board can act? If that is the question, the answer is yes. If your question is whether the ICANN's Board decision is binding on the registries, that is a totally separate issue. Irrespective of the answer, whether we call it a new PDP or jus opening a new WG, I guess I am neutral. I would just clarify that rather than having the WG determine a solution, in order to narrow that down, and speed up the times lines, I would propose that the WG just focus on the solution presented by the Design Team which I believe is the NeuStar/Afilias solution (unless people think that would be too narrow). Design Team -- Does this sound like a way forward? If so, I could take the substance of the motion that has been reworked (minus all of the Whereas clauses) and try to come up with a draft charter and proposed time-line to send to the group. (To that end, if someone has a form charter to use as a template, that would help). If not, I am sure I can wing it. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:50 PM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Hi, Two quick comments: - The issue of whether this would or would not be a consensus policy is one for legal counsel. I can certainly check with legal counsel to find out the status of a decision according to 13f. - We are already in a PDP. As opposed to trying to begin yet another PDP, I would would think a suggestion for an open WG to come up with a solution that could get a supermajority would be a more feasible route. Assuming others in the DT and the council, agree with you. If this is the path the DT suggests, it would be good for the DT to propose the charter and timings. a. On 22 Feb 2008, at 13:45, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > A couple of notes: > > 1. A majority of the Council as opposed to Supermajority is not > "deemed to reflect the view of the Council". See Section 12. > > 2. Yes, the Board can act, but again, that Board decision, in my view > (and in the view of the other registries) would not be binding on the > gTLD Registry Operators because that would not be viewed as "consensus > of Internet stakeholders". After all, if a majority is not even > deemed to reflect the view of the Council, then how can it represent a > Consensus of Internet stakeholder. > > 3. The reason I am using the phrase "consensus of Internet > stakeholders" is because that is the phrase that is used in the gTLD > contracts. See below which is taken from Section 3.1(b)(iv) of the > .com agreement (See > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06 > . > htm) which states: > > "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed > shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of > Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs. Consensus > Policies shall relate to one or more of the following: (1) issues for > which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to > facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of the Internet > or DNS; > (2) > functional and performance specifications for the provision of > Registry Services (as defined in Section 3.1(d)(iii) below); (3) > Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; (4) > registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies > relating to registry operations or registrars; or (5) resolution of > disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the > use of such domain names). Such categories of issues referred to in > the preceding sentence shall include, without limitation: > > Particularly important is the phrase "including the operators of > gTLDs". > Now before you try to argue that it is modified by the phrase "to the > extent possible", let me state that the following: > > 1. "To the extent possible" does not mean that if the registries are > on the losing side of the vote it is not "possible" to achieve gTLD > operator support for a proposal on domain tasting. > > 2. The gTLD Registries have indicated on a number of occasions that > we do believe a proposal to eliminate tasting (in TLDs where tasting > has > occurred) can garner the registry operators support. We are committed > to working with you to achieve that. We just need to find a solution > that takes into consideration the differences of each of the > registries. > > Now if we are done talking about process, lets get down to business: > > 1. There is a proposed solution on the table; namely I believe the > NeuStar/Afilias proposal (which by the way should be officially posted > for public comment today). > > 2. My recommendation is to take those proposals, get the GNSO Council > to initiate a PDP, and launch a Task Force (or Working Group) open to > the community whose sole purpose and charter is to study the > implications of this proposal. I would gladly help ICANN staff in the > drafting of that charter. > > 3. We follow the strict timing in the Bylaws on the formation of the > Task Force/Working Group, elect a chair, and get constituency > statements getting them to focus solely on the proposal. This should > be very easy, quick and painless. > > 4. Have a Task Force report that analyzes the constituency statements > and public input and modifies the proposal (if necessary). Put that > out for comment and draft the final report (all included in the > Bylaws). > > If we follow the strict timing in the Bylaws, which I believe we can, > we can have this done, wrapped up and to the Board within 90 days and > still before the Paris meeting. > > This will require some diligent efforts, but let's show that this is > possible. > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & > > Business Development > > NeuStar, Inc. > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] > On > Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:15 PM > To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion > > > > On 22 Feb 2008, at 11:41, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > >> eff, good question. I'd appreciate clarification of that, too, to >> make sure we're all on the same page. The transcripts of the GNSO >> Council meeting and Thursday wrap-up are far from crystal clear. As >> for your other point, I had understood that the bylaws do not require >> supermajority support of Council before Board can vote. If there's >> language elsewhere that controls, I'd appreciate if you would point >> me in the right direction so that I'm working from the same baseline. > > Hi, > > As I read the by-laws, appended below, the Council does not need to > achieve a supermajority in order to forward on a decision (note 11b). > A non supermajority view, though, is treated differently by the board > (13b vs. 13f). > > In terms of this DT, the purpose is still to present a way forward for > the council to discuss. That can be a motion, a motion plus update of > constituency statements, or a WG charter. The motion can be based on > the reworked version Alan has presented, or another motion all > together, e.g. the elimination of a required AGP as was suggested by > many of the comments or some other motion. > > I think it is best if the way forward leads to a supermajority > position. If we can't get a motion that would be able to garner > supermajority support, then perhaps we need to do more work and a WG > charter might be the right way forward. > > a. > > > from the by-laws > ----------------------- > > 11. Council Report to the Board > > The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, > and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate > the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board > (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the > following: > > a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of > the Council; > > b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of > all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly > indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the > constituency(ies) that held the position; > > c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, > including any financial impact on the constituency; > > d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be > necessary to implement the policy; > > e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be > accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) > qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts > of interest; > > f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and > > g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy > issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, > accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions. > > 12. Agreement of the Council > > A Supermajority Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect > the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the > Council's recommendation. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all > Council members must cast a vote unless they identify a financial > interest in the outcome of the policy issue. Notwithstanding the > foregoing, as set forth above, all viewpoints expressed by Council > members during the PDP must be included in the Board Report. > > 13. Board Vote > > a. The Board will meet to discuss the GNSO Council recommendation > as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Staff > Manager. > > b. In the event that the Council reached a Supermajority Vote, the > Board shall adopt the policy according to the Council Supermajority > Vote recommendation unless by a vote of more than sixty- six (66%) > percent of the Board determines that such policy is not in the best > interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. > > c. In the event that the Board determines not to act in accordance > with the Council Supermajority Vote recommendation, the Board shall > (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the > Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement > to the Council. > > d. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion > with the Board within twenty (20) calendar days after the Council's > receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method > (e.g., by teleconference, e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council > and Board will discuss the Board Statement. > > e. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the > Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and > communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the > Board, including an explanation for its current recommendation. In the > event that the Council is able to reach a Supermajority Vote on the > Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation > unless more than sixty-six (66%) percent of the Board determines that > such policy is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. > > f. In any case in which the Council is not able to reach > Supermajority, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to act. > > g. When a final decision on a GNSO Council Recommendation or > Supplemental Recommendation is timely, the Board shall take a > preliminary vote and, where practicable, will publish a tentative > decision that allows for a ten (10) day period of public comment prior > to a final decision by the Board. > > >

2 1

FW: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 25, 2008

Feb. 25, 2008

Rita, I, and I suspect others on the Council, would appreciate your view of the position stated below by Jeff Neuman, as you are an exceptional attorney who assisted in drafting the PDP provisions, have been nominated by the Registry Constituency, and are a member of ICANN's Board Governance Committee (including GNSO Reform subcommittee) and the Board's Executive Committee. Oh yes, and we are all asked to vote on your reappointment very shortly :) Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 9:11 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: FW: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion I think it important for the entire Council to see the reasoning of the Registry Constituency representative to the domain tasting 'design team', as it applies to any policy development work of the Council. Essentially I think this boils down to a position that the ICANN Board cannot enforce any Consensus Policy unless the Registry Constituency has agreed to it. This came as a surprise to me. Perhaps I am misinterpreting and will be corrected by Jeff or another RyC representative. Perhaps we should have an opinion of ICANN Counsel on this issue as well? -Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:45 AM To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion A couple of notes: 1. A majority of the Council as opposed to Supermajority is not "deemed to reflect the view of the Council". See Section 12. 2. Yes, the Board can act, but again, that Board decision, in my view (and in the view of the other registries) would not be binding on the gTLD Registry Operators because that would not be viewed as "consensus of Internet stakeholders". After all, if a majority is not even deemed to reflect the view of the Council, then how can it represent a Consensus of Internet stakeholder. 3. The reason I am using the phrase "consensus of Internet stakeholders" is because that is the phrase that is used in the gTLD contracts. See below which is taken from Section 3.1(b)(iv) of the .com agreement (See http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06. htm) which states: "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs. Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following: (1) issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of the Internet or DNS; (2) functional and performance specifications for the provision of Registry Services (as defined in Section 3.1(d)(iii) below); (3) Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; (4) registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; or (5) resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names). Such categories of issues referred to in the preceding sentence shall include, without limitation: Particularly important is the phrase "including the operators of gTLDs". Now before you try to argue that it is modified by the phrase "to the extent possible", let me state that the following: 1. "To the extent possible" does not mean that if the registries are on the losing side of the vote it is not "possible" to achieve gTLD operator support for a proposal on domain tasting. 2. The gTLD Registries have indicated on a number of occassions that we do believe a proposal to eliminate tasting (in TLDs where tasting has occurred) can garner the registry operators support. We are committed to working with you to achieve that. We just need to find a solution that takes into consideration the differences of each of the registries. Now if we are done talking about process, lets get down to business: 1. There is a proposed solution on the table; namely I believe the NeuStar/Afilias proposal (which by the way should be officially posted for public comment today). 2. My recommendation is to take those proposals, get the GNSO Council to initiate a PDP, and launch a Task Force (or Working Group) open to the community whose sole purpose and charter is to study the implications of this proposal. I would gladly help ICANN staff in the drafting of that charter. 3. We follow the strict timing in the Bylaws on the formation of the Task Force/Working Group, elect a chair, and get constituency statements getting them to focus solely on the proposal. This should be very easy, quick and painless. 4. Have a Task Force report that analyzes the constituency statements and public input and modifies the proposal (if necessary). Put that out for comment and draft the final report (all included in the Bylaws). If we follow the strict timing in the Bylaws, which I believe we can, we can have this done, wrapped up and to the Board within 90 days and still before the Paris meeting. This will require some diligent efforts, but let's show that this is possible. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:15 PM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion On 22 Feb 2008, at 11:41, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > eff, good question. I'd appreciate clarification of that, too, to > make > sure we're all on the same page. The transcripts of the GNSO Council > meeting and Thursday wrap-up are far from crystal clear. As for your > other point, I had understood that the bylaws do not require > supermajority support of Council before Board can vote. If there's > language elsewhere that controls, I'd appreciate if you would point me > in the right direction so that I'm working from the same baseline. Hi, As I read the by-laws, appended below, the Council does not need to achieve a supermajority in order to forward on a decision (note 11b). A non supermajority view, though, is treated differently by the board (13b vs. 13f). In terms of this DT, the purpose is still to present a way forward for the council to discuss. That can be a motion, a motion plus update of constituency statements, or a WG charter. The motion can be based on the reworked version Alan has presented, or another motion all together, e.g. the elimination of a required AGP as was suggested by many of the comments or some other motion. I think it is best if the way forward leads to a supermajority position. If we can't get a motion that would be able to garner supermajority support, then perhaps we need to do more work and a WG charter might be the right way forward. a. from the by-laws ----------------------- 11. Council Report to the Board The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following: a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council; b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position; c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest; f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions. 12. Agreement of the Council A Supermajority Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the Council's recommendation. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all Council members must cast a vote unless they identify a financial interest in the outcome of the policy issue. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as set forth above, all viewpoints expressed by Council members during the PDP must be included in the Board Report. 13. Board Vote a. The Board will meet to discuss the GNSO Council recommendation as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Staff Manager. b. In the event that the Council reached a Supermajority Vote, the Board shall adopt the policy according to the Council Supermajority Vote recommendation unless by a vote of more than sixty- six (66%) percent of the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. c. In the event that the Board determines not to act in accordance with the Council Supermajority Vote recommendation, the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council. d. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board within twenty (20) calendar days after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement. e. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for its current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than sixty-six (66%) percent of the Board determines that such policy is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. f. In any case in which the Council is not able to reach Supermajority, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to act. g. When a final decision on a GNSO Council Recommendation or Supplemental Recommendation is timely, the Board shall take a preliminary vote and, where practicable, will publish a tentative decision that allows for a ten (10) day period of public comment prior to a final decision by the Board.

2 1

RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 25, 2008

Feb. 25, 2008

The answer is "MANY TIMES." An excess delete fee proposal was put out for public comment when PIR suggested it. It was the subject of public comment during five different ICANN open meetings and workshops. It again was subject of public comment after the initial Staff Report. Then it was the focus of much public comment during preparation of the Outcomes Report. Then again there was a public comment after the Staff's "Initial Report." Finally, there has been opportunity for public comment at the GNSO meeting in Delhi. To my recollection after all of this public input, no group or individual other than the Registries Constituency (as opposed to many of the individual registries including Neustar) are substantively opposed to the concept of an excess delete fee. We have seen the experience in .org, we have seen .biz and .info propose the same proposal the Design Team has made. We have had a ton of discussion, analysis and public comment. And now we are seeing the Registry Constituency argue only that there is no solution that can apply to them all, and they will not accept (and the Board cannot enforce) any solution they do not agree with. Those arguments need to be tested, as otherwise they give the RyC complete control over GNSO policy development, and the rest of us should just quit wasting our time. I would like ICANN Counsel's view on the latter argument, as I feel it is also core to the debate about GNSO reform, since the proposal from the Board Governance Committee would give the RyC still more power over the process (if that is even possible under their interpretation of the Consensus Policy provisions of their contracts). Given the long history of this issue, I cannot agree to yet another working group and more than 3 more months of delay just within GNSO. The reality is that if GNSO ever does make a recommendation, it would be at least 3-6 more months before the Board could vote on it and it could be implemented, and quite possibly longer. (Note that it took PIR six months to implement its proposal, after Board approval.) -Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:26 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Again, you use the term Filibuster, which is completely inappropriate. Please answer the following simple question: QUESTION: At what point in time was the proposal mentioned in the "motion" by the Design Team EVER put out for public comment? Even in looking at your recitation of history (which I am not going to take the time to check the accuracy), the answer is clearly "NEVER". Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:11 AM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Thanks Liz. In response to this report four months ago, the Council essentially voted to handle these terms of reference itself, rather than form a Task Force to do so. I believe we did this because a majority felt we had enough evidence about the effects, judged that the effects justify measures be taken to impede domain tasting, and had much information about potential impacts of various resolutions but also would get Constituency Impact statements about such potential impacts. We then got those Impact Statements. The Council then voted to have an open, volunteer design team to suggest next steps, and that team unanimously recommended a measure designed to impede domain tasting -- which the Council should be deliberating, if we can get past the process roadblock of the Registries. How did we get here? Here's a brief history of the ICANN process wrt to domain tasting, and specifically wrt to the 'excess delete fee' resolution: PIR request to SSAC in March 2006, http://www.pir.org/PDFs/SSAC-ICANN_ORG_Tasting_3-26-06.pdf Sept. 2006, PIR proposal to implement 'excess delete fee service'. Nov. 2006 the ICANN Board: Resolved, (06.84), the President and the General Counsel are authorized to enter into an amendment of the .ORG Registry Agreement to implement the proposed excess deletion fee service At least five ICANN public meetings and workshops on the domain tasting issue, links to full transcripts of those meeting are at this page, http://public.icann.org/issues/domain-name-tasting: * 27 June 2006: Domain tasting workshop * 6 December 2006: Domain name marketplace. * 25 March 2007: How the Marketplace for Expiring Names Has Changed * 25 March 2007: Domain name secondary market * 24 June 2007: Domain tasting tutorial June 2007, PIR implements excess deletion fee, tasting immediately and drastically reduced in .org June 2007: In response to ALAC request and GNSO vote, ICANN staff prepared an issues paper on domain tasting, which discussed the PIR implementation of the excess delete fee. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-1 4jun 07.pdf. The report also shows the ICANN General Counsel's opinion that policy development wrt to domain tasting is "within scope of the ICANN policy process and within scope of the GNSO." This report also had a public comment period. June 2007, GNSO voted to form a working group to examine the facts and recommend further action, with a report created in October 2007: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-f inal ...pdf. The working group contained reps from all Constituencies and from other stakeholders. Their consensus report included discussion of excess delete fee (including PIR's implementation), suggestion of it as a potential resolution, and documented the widespread community discussion about it as a resolution. This report included much public input both via an open questionnaire, and also one designed by the Intellectual Property Constituency for trademark owners. October 2007, GNSO voted to move forward with the PDP by requesting Constituency Impact Statements with respect to the information and proposed resolutions contained in the Outcomes report, including the excess delete fee. GNSO rejected option of forming a Task Force, deciding instead that the issue was ripe for Council deliberation and resolution. BC, NCUC, ALAC and Registrars Constituency each give view on excess delete fees. The statements are incorporated in the "Initial Report" http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-initial-report-domain-t asti ng-07jan08.pdf, which had a public comment period. November 2007, GNSO voted to form a 'design team' to review all the reports and public comments, and recommend next steps in the PDP. January 2008, Design Team of 3 Councilors and ALAC Advisor unanimously agreed on proposed Council resolution recommending excess delete fee for all registries with an AGP, which is the same proposal put forth by Afilias and Neustar for .info and .biz. The Design Team finds this the most reasonable and potentially achievable compromise among the various options. January 29, 2008, ICANN Board suggests action to address domain tasting: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-29jan08.htm." The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is looking to effectively end domain tasting with a proposal to start charging the annual ICANN fee on registrar domain registrations." It is unclear whether this will actually become part of the ICANN budget beginning July, 2008. February 2008, Registries filibuster substantive Council deliberation by arguing there has not been enough process to address the proposed Council resolution. Registry Constituency representative argues that any Council resolution could not become Consensus Policy unless the Registries Constituency agrees to the resolution. Respectfully submitted, Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:47 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Rosette, Kristina; Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion All, The three draft terms of reference that were suggested in the October 2007 Domain Tasting Outcomes Report that Chuck refers to below are copied for your reference. Liz 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the potential impacts of various measures on the Constituencies, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:57 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Thanks for the questions Kristina. I attempted to answer them as best I can below with the understanding that what I say is my personal interpretation because I have not cleared it with the RyC. I certainly encourage Jeff as the RyC representative on this WG to confirm or correct anything I say, and I of course will communicate any differences of opinion from RyC members if and when I become aware of any. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Chuck, It would be helpful to me (and perhaps others) if you could provide some clarification of one point made in the RyC constituency statement. Paragraph 3.1.2 states that "The RyC believes that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work for all registries and sponsors. The RyC therefore suggests that consideration of variations of this approach should be evaluated by individual registries and sponsors. It should also be noted that what is successful for one gTLD may not have the same results in another gTLD." Paragraph 3.2.1 indicates that this position has supermajority support within the RYC. I read this paragraph to mean that the RyC will not support a "one-size-fits-all approach." Is that interpretation correct? CG: Yes, but it may be helpful to qualify what I believe the position means. I attempt that below. If it is, I am having difficulty understanding how it is possible for the design team (or the Council, for that matter) to develop any policy, which will inherently be a one-size-fits-all approach", that will have any support from the RyC. (I am excluding "policies" that recommend no action be taken or recommend the status quo, namely, each registry do its own thing.) Is it possible? If so, I would appreciate some clarification. CG: If a policy is proposed that does not take into consideration the differences among registries and sponsors with regard to the AGP and the impacts the proposed policy might have on various registries and sponsors, then it is highly unlikely that the RyC would support the proposed policy. In my opinion though, that does not mean that the RyC would oppose any proposed policy. What I believe we are saying is that any such policy needs to adequately deal with any applicable differences that exist among registries and sponsors. In other words, the policy development process needs to attempt to address any applicable differences that exist among registries and sponsors. If that is done in a reasonable manner, then I do not think that the RyC would oppose any resulting policy recommendations on the basis of the issue of 'one size fits all'. The fact that this did not happen yet should not be taken as a criticism of the 'design team', because I do not believe they were tasked with developing policy but rather, as Avri pointed out, to suggest next steps forward. But, to the extent that the 'design team' takes on a broader role that includes proposing a possible policy, then it is essential that the one-size fits all issue be dealt with. This to me would best be handled by an open working group with clear terms of reference that delineate tasks as those suggested in the Domain Tasting Outcomes Report. Many thanks. K -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 8:51 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion A few corrections and clarifications below Mike. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 3:34 PM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion I would prefer to vote on the proposal ASAP. Council has already decided not to have a Task Force, and had commissioned an open WG already, and has taken Constituency Impact Statements. This proposal has been thoroughly vetted through open process. I see no hope of coming to a solution that RyC will accept, because their position appears to be that ICANN can't make policy that binds them, unless they agree. And they haven't agreed to any policy development the last 3 years, except for newTLDs which will make them more money and Inter-Registrar Transfer which will save them money via less disputes. Seems to me that RyC is again trying to delay policy development for as long as they can, by throwing up bogus arguments about lack of process. CG: The open WG was an information gathering WG. The impact statements were not based on any policy recommendations developed by a PDP. What proposal was "thoroughly vetted"? Certainly not the proposal in the motion. While we won't have a SuperMajority (if indeed we even have a majority), it will be clear why, and the Board can do as it likes. And we can move onto other issues as we will have done our job. I simply have no confidence that 3 more months will produce anything different in the situation we have today. I have lost patience on this issue because the practice is so facially wrong and has garnered almost unanimous antipathy from the non-contracting community, yet Council have spun our wheels endlessly for about a year now, fruitlessly trying to do anything about it. Process like this gives ICANN a bad name. CG: Whether or not you think additional time will produce what you want is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we have a legitimate policy development process. -Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:04 PM To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Avri, Is your question to the ICANN GC on whether the ICANN Board can act? If that is the question, the answer is yes. If your question is whether the ICANN's Board decision is binding on the registries, that is a totally separate issue. Irrespective of the answer, whether we call it a new PDP or jus opening a new WG, I guess I am neutral. I would just clarify that rather than having the WG determine a solution, in order to narrow that down, and speed up the times lines, I would propose that the WG just focus on the solution presented by the Design Team which I believe is the NeuStar/Afilias solution (unless people think that would be too narrow). Design Team -- Does this sound like a way forward? If so, I could take the substance of the motion that has been reworked (minus all of the Whereas clauses) and try to come up with a draft charter and proposed time-line to send to the group. (To that end, if someone has a form charter to use as a template, that would help). If not, I am sure I can wing it. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:50 PM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion Hi, Two quick comments: - The issue of whether this would or would not be a consensus policy is one for legal counsel. I can certainly check with legal counsel to find out the status of a decision according to 13f. - We are already in a PDP. As opposed to trying to begin yet another PDP, I would would think a suggestion for an open WG to come up with a solution that could get a supermajority would be a more feasible route. Assuming others in the DT and the council, agree with you. If this is the path the DT suggests, it would be good for the DT to propose the charter and timings. a. On 22 Feb 2008, at 13:45, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > A couple of notes: > > 1. A majority of the Council as opposed to Supermajority is not > "deemed to reflect the view of the Council". See Section 12. > > 2. Yes, the Board can act, but again, that Board decision, in my view > (and in the view of the other registries) would not be binding on the > gTLD Registry Operators because that would not be viewed as "consensus > of Internet stakeholders". After all, if a majority is not even > deemed to reflect the view of the Council, then how can it represent a > Consensus of Internet stakeholder. > > 3. The reason I am using the phrase "consensus of Internet > stakeholders" is because that is the phrase that is used in the gTLD > contracts. See below which is taken from Section 3.1(b)(iv) of the > .com agreement (See > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06 > . > htm) which states: > > "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed > shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of > Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs. Consensus > Policies shall relate to one or more of the following: (1) issues for > which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to > facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of the Internet > or DNS; > (2) > functional and performance specifications for the provision of > Registry Services (as defined in Section 3.1(d)(iii) below); (3) > Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; (4) > registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies > relating to registry operations or registrars; or (5) resolution of > disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the > use of such domain names). Such categories of issues referred to in > the preceding sentence shall include, without limitation: > > Particularly important is the phrase "including the operators of > gTLDs". > Now before you try to argue that it is modified by the phrase "to the > extent possible", let me state that the following: > > 1. "To the extent possible" does not mean that if the registries are > on the losing side of the vote it is not "possible" to achieve gTLD > operator support for a proposal on domain tasting. > > 2. The gTLD Registries have indicated on a number of occasions that > we do believe a proposal to eliminate tasting (in TLDs where tasting > has > occurred) can garner the registry operators support. We are committed > to working with you to achieve that. We just need to find a solution > that takes into consideration the differences of each of the > registries. > > Now if we are done talking about process, lets get down to business: > > 1. There is a proposed solution on the table; namely I believe the > NeuStar/Afilias proposal (which by the way should be officially posted > for public comment today). > > 2. My recommendation is to take those proposals, get the GNSO Council > to initiate a PDP, and launch a Task Force (or Working Group) open to > the community whose sole purpose and charter is to study the > implications of this proposal. I would gladly help ICANN staff in the > drafting of that charter. > > 3. We follow the strict timing in the Bylaws on the formation of the > Task Force/Working Group, elect a chair, and get constituency > statements getting them to focus solely on the proposal. This should > be very easy, quick and painless. > > 4. Have a Task Force report that analyzes the constituency statements > and public input and modifies the proposal (if necessary). Put that > out for comment and draft the final report (all included in the > Bylaws). > > If we follow the strict timing in the Bylaws, which I believe we can, > we can have this done, wrapped up and to the Board within 90 days and > still before the Paris meeting. > > This will require some diligent efforts, but let's show that this is > possible. > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & > > Business Development > > NeuStar, Inc. > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] > On > Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:15 PM > To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion > > > > On 22 Feb 2008, at 11:41, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > >> eff, good question. I'd appreciate clarification of that, too, to >> make sure we're all on the same page. The transcripts of the GNSO >> Council meeting and Thursday wrap-up are far from crystal clear. As >> for your other point, I had understood that the bylaws do not require >> supermajority support of Council before Board can vote. If there's >> language elsewhere that controls, I'd appreciate if you would point >> me in the right direction so that I'm working from the same baseline. > > Hi, > > As I read the by-laws, appended below, the Council does not need to > achieve a supermajority in order to forward on a decision (note 11b). > A non supermajority view, though, is treated differently by the board > (13b vs. 13f). > > In terms of this DT, the purpose is still to present a way forward for > the council to discuss. That can be a motion, a motion plus update of > constituency statements, or a WG charter. The motion can be based on > the reworked version Alan has presented, or another motion all > together, e.g. the elimination of a required AGP as was suggested by > many of the comments or some other motion. > > I think it is best if the way forward leads to a supermajority > position. If we can't get a motion that would be able to garner > supermajority support, then perhaps we need to do more work and a WG > charter might be the right way forward. > > a. > > > from the by-laws > ----------------------- > > 11. Council Report to the Board > > The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, > and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate > the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board > (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the > following: > > a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of > the Council; > > b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of > all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly > indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the > constituency(ies) that held the position; > > c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, > including any financial impact on the constituency; > > d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be > necessary to implement the policy; > > e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be > accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) > qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts > of interest; > > f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and > > g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy > issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, > accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions. > > 12. Agreement of the Council > > A Supermajority Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect > the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the > Council's recommendation. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all > Council members must cast a vote unless they identify a financial > interest in the outcome of the policy issue. Notwithstanding the > foregoing, as set forth above, all viewpoints expressed by Council > members during the PDP must be included in the Board Report. > > 13. Board Vote > > a. The Board will meet to discuss the GNSO Council recommendation > as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Staff > Manager. > > b. In the event that the Council reached a Supermajority Vote, the > Board shall adopt the policy according to the Council Supermajority > Vote recommendation unless by a vote of more than sixty- six (66%) > percent of the Board determines that such policy is not in the best > interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. > > c. In the event that the Board determines not to act in accordance > with the Council Supermajority Vote recommendation, the Board shall > (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the > Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement > to the Council. > > d. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion > with the Board within twenty (20) calendar days after the Council's > receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method > (e.g., by teleconference, e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council > and Board will discuss the Board Statement. > > e. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the > Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and > communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the > Board, including an explanation for its current recommendation. In the > event that the Council is able to reach a Supermajority Vote on the > Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation > unless more than sixty-six (66%) percent of the Board determines that > such policy is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. > > f. In any case in which the Council is not able to reach > Supermajority, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to act. > > g. When a final decision on a GNSO Council Recommendation or > Supplemental Recommendation is timely, the Board shall take a > preliminary vote and, where practicable, will publish a tentative > decision that allows for a ten (10) day period of public comment prior > to a final decision by the Board. > > >

1 0