February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

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

Feb. 25, 2008

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.

1 0

[Fwd: Candidate Statement]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 24, 2008

Feb. 24, 2008

Dear Council Members, Please find the Rita Rodin's candidate statement for the position of ICANN Director, seat 14. A reminder: there will be the opportunity for the Council and constituency members to interview Rita on the Thursday, 28 February call at 19:00 UTC. Thank you, Glen Candidate Name: Rita A. Rodin Citizenship: United States of America Employer: Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Criteria for Selection of Directors 1. Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making; I am a partner in the Intellectual Property and Technology Group in the New York office of the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. I received a Bachelor of Science (magna cum laude) from Boston College in 1990, and Juris Doctor from St. John's University in 1993. I served as a federal law clerk to the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of New York, from 1993-1994. I joined Skadden in 1994, as our internet practice was beginning. Our practice permits me to represent both multi-national and start-up companies, in a diverse range of industries and countries. I have worked with clients such as Merck KGaA, Richemont SA, Skype Technologies, IBM, Deloitte and Touche and Banco Itau. My practice today is diverse and international, and I focus on mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and strategic alliances and outsourcing arrangements. I regularly lecture and write on various intellectual property and technology topics, including outsourcing, trademark and domain name developments and open source software. My clients rely on me to identify, understand and negotiate complex positions and arrangements. I believe to be successful in that role, I must listen to and respect all points of view, and work to facilitate compromise and agreement. I further believe that skills of this nature can and should be employed within the ICANN community to foster trust, consensus and progress on some of the difficult issues facing ICANN today. 2. Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet community, and committed to the success of ICANN. I have been fortunate to serve on the ICANN Board since June of 2006, and to work with ICANN and members of the ICANN community since 1998. In my various roles, I have developed an understanding of the issues and touch points of many of ICANNs stakeholders, and also understand now from a Directors point of view, the challenges that the organization has faced and continues to face. I decided to run for the Board seat again because I believe that we are entering a critical phase of ICANNs growth and development, and am committed to assist in any way that I can to the continued improvement of the organization. 3. Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section; I am from the United States, so generally will approach my Director duties from a US perspective, but I have worked and traveled quite extensively throughout the world and still have close family living in other countries. I believe that this enables me to understand and appreciate different cultures and points of view. I also believe that it is important to maintain a gender balanced Director slate, as there are relatively few women currently serving on the Board. Finally, I think that being the tallest Board member (even when not in heels) also contributes to diversity. 4. Persons who, in the aggregate, have personal familiarity with the operation of gTLD registries and registrars; with ccTLD registries; with IP address registries; with Internet technical standards and protocols; with policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest; and with the broad range of business, individual, academic, and non-commercial users of the Internet; As I mentioned above, I worked with ICANN and different constituencies since the organization's inception in 1998. Following are some details. UDRP In 1998, my firm was asked to represent register.com and AOL in connection with drafting an effective and streamlined policy to deal with disputes between trademark and domain name owners. We worked with the World Intellectual Property Organization, registrars, Network Solutions (then, the sole .com/net/org registry) and ICANN to create a draft of the UDRP. After I presented the draft at the ICANN meeting in Santiago, Chile, I was asked to participate in a small drafting committee consisting of members of the non-commercial and intellectual property interests, in addition to members of WIPO and ICANN. This committee finalized the policy that is still in use today. .INFO/.NAME./.TEL I worked with the group of registrars that formed Afilias, Ltd., operators of the .info registry, through the (i) formation of Afilias, (ii) ICANN bid process, (iii) ICANN contract negotiations, and (iv) start-up of its operations. I also represented the Global Name Registry in connection with its ICANN contract negotiations and start-up operations. I currently represent Telnic, Ltd., the entity that was recently awarded the .tel sTLD. POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS In 2002, I was appointed by ICANN to chair an international task force that drafted the Policy Development Process that is currently used by ICANN to develop and implement future ICANN policies. As discussed above, I am a transactional lawyer with a diverse and global practice. As such, my job consists of identifying issues and proposing resolutions for clients with different points of view and cultural backgrounds. In addition, my work requires that I interface with an organization at all levels - - from advising Boards and senior management to addressing issues facing those responsible for the execution of day-to-day operations. In this role, I cannot only advocate the position of my client, because without a mutually acceptable solution, no agreement will be reached. Rather, I must listen to, and understand, all sides of an issue in order to facilitate reaching agreement. I view these skills as very important for a member of ICANN's Board. Given the diverse nature of the global internet community, I think that it is critical for the Board to listen to, and appreciate, all voices and opinions. I believe that the Board must assist constituencies in seeking and reaching consensus, to enable all involved to benefit from the resolution of issues. I also view my experience with multiple constituencies within the ICANN community as providing me with unique insight into the often competing concerns and issues of many of the community stakeholders. I would seek to use this experience to accommodate the interests of as many ICANN stakeholders as possible. 5. Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and I am willing to serve in the absence of compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses. 6. Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English. English is my native language. Section 4. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no official of a national government or a multinational entity established by treaty or other agreement between national governments may serve as a Director. As used herein, the term "official" means a person (i) who holds an elective governmental office or (ii) who is employed by such government or multinational entity and whose primary function with such government or entity is to develop or influence governmental or public policies. I am not such an official. 2. No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board. If such a person accepts a nomination to be considered for selection by the Supporting Organization Council to be a Director, the person shall not, following such nomination, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, the Supporting Organization Council relating to the selection of Directors by the Council, until the Council has selected the full complement of Directors it is responsible for selecting. In the event that a person serving in any capacity on a Supporting Organization Council accepts a nomination to be considered for selection as a Director, the constituency group or other group or entity that selected the person may select a replacement for purposes of the Council's selection process. I have not served on any Supporting Organization Council. 3. Persons serving in any capacity on the Nominating Committee shall be ineligible for selection to positions on the Board as provided by Article VII, Section 8. I have not served on the Nominating Committee. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **************************************************** To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. **************************************************** **************************************************** This email and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of any email, and any printout thereof. Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request. **************************************************** ============================================================================== -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO response to ccNSO GAC Issues report on IDNs
by Olof Nordling Feb. 22, 2008

Feb. 22, 2008

Dear Board Members, Please find attached the GNSO response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Report regarding IDNs at the top-level, on behalf of and with kind regards from the GNSO Council Chair, Avri Doria. Very best regards Olof

1 0

RE: GNSO response to Issues Report on IDN ccTLDs
by Olof Nordling Feb. 21, 2008

Feb. 21, 2008

Dear all, Attached is the final version of the GNSO response. The only modifications in relation to the version sent 15 February are that minority statements from the NCUC regarding "confusingly similar" and from Avri Doria have been attached as annex 1 and 2, respectively, and referenced with footnotes in the summary. This version is now in FINAL CALL on the Council list for 48 hours, thus until 22 February 21.00 UTC (there were some slight delays, hence the current timing...). The text will then be submitted as GNSO's response (provided no objections surface on the list in the meantime). Very best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: Olof Nordling Sent: den 15 februari 2008 06:20 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: GNSO response to Issues Report on IDN ccTLDs Dear all, The attached version of the GNSO response reflects the state of this document at the end of the ICANN New Delhi meeting, following the GNSO discussions on Thursday 14 February. The NCUC will provide a minority statement on "confusingly similar" before Wednesday 20 February 17.00 UTC - and any other comments/modifications have the same deadline. Please send any comments to me. A final version will be sent to the list very soon thereafter for a 48 hour final call and subsequent lodging by the 22 February deadline for submissions. Very best regards Olof

2 1

Some clarifications on meetings.
by Avri Doria Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Hi, After some more discussion on meetings, and partially due to the schedule we set collided with May 1, which for many is a holiday, the schedule of meetings is suggested as follows: 28 Feb - Informal meeting with Rita prior to voting which begins on 29 Feb. 6 March - regular council meeting 27 March- regular council meeting 17 April- regular council meeting 8 May- regular council meeting 29 May- regular council meeting I also believe we will need to schedule a fair number of other meetings for Drafting Teams, Improvement implementation teams, new gTLD clarification efforts, WGs, etc - but that will be done later. a.

3 4

IDN TLDs and Board Motion 2008.02.15.11
by Avri Doria Feb. 17, 2008

Feb. 17, 2008

Hi, I just wanted to write a short public note to personally thank Susan Crawford for her difficult vote on Board Motion 2008.02.15.11. The way the motion was worded it was hard to vote against, after all, who could be against dialogue? However, what I believe was hidden in this motion was rejection of the GNSO's position regarding the importance of separate community wide understanding the classification, or allotment by any other name, of TLDs which was contained in the GNSO council's request to the Board. I personally see Susan's vote as support for the GNSO position that the entire names community needs to be involved in the process. With this motion, I believe that any hope we may have had for a parallel process is now in the past. I believe we must make the best of the opportunities we will have to comment on, and be part of, the ccNSO and GAC processes to establish a de-facto classification among IDN TLDs and to create a fair playing ground for all IDN TLDs. Thanks Susan. a.

1 0

Next steps on Domain Name Tasting PDP
by Avri Doria Feb. 15, 2008

Feb. 15, 2008

Hi, At yesterdays meeting we discussed the next steps for the DNT PDP. As thad been some confusion about the steps that could be suggested by a Drafting Team. While I believe that the DT was within its rights to propose a motion as opposed to WG charter as some of us had expected, not everyone understood that this was a possible outcome. I would also like to make a note about how I see Drafting Teams. I think they are small ad-hoc groups formed by council members, though other constituency members may be included, who work together to make a proposal that they hope will be able to garner consensus support. In this respect, it is important for those who have a strong concern about the proposal to volunteer for these Drafting Teams. The proposal they put on the table, however, is just that - a proposal that then needs to be discussed and then accepted, modified or rejected by the council at large. At this point, another meeting of the DT has been scheduled for Monday 25 Feb. At this point I understand that Alan plans to offer a re- wording of the current motion. I believe the option on the table at this point remain the same as at yesterdays meeting. - The council votes on the revised motion (without bracketed text) at either the 27 March meeting. - The council asks constituencies to update impact statements based on the motion and vote at the 17 March meeting - The DT proposes a charter for a WG and the council votes on the creating the proposed WG. thanks a.

4 3

GNSO response to Issues Report on IDN ccTLDs
by Olof Nordling Feb. 15, 2008

Feb. 15, 2008

Dear all, The attached version of the GNSO response reflects the state of this document at the end of the ICANN New Delhi meeting, following the GNSO discussions on Thursday 14 February. The NCUC will provide a minority statement on "confusingly similar" before Wednesday 20 February 17.00 UTC - and any other comments/modifications have the same deadline. Please send any comments to me. A final version will be sent to the list very soon thereafter for a 48 hour final call and subsequent lodging by the 22 February deadline for submissions. Very best regards Olof

1 0

Agenda for today's meeting 1600-1800
by Avri Doria Feb. 14, 2008

Feb. 14, 2008

Proposed agenda Items for Thursday Meeting - Discuss agenda - Process for DTN deliberations a. Vote at next meeting b. Update impact based on motion c. WG charter - narrow focus on impact and implementation of motion - wider focus on motion plus other alternatives - discussion on IDN Response open Issues - executive summary Items 5 and 9 seem resolved - executive summary item 10 needs discussion - Process for GNSO Improvement work - WGs? - number of WG charters - DT for charter proposals? - initial guideline for WG processes - Process for contributing to budget discussions - WG? - Process for dealing with new gTLD issue work - WG? - Meeting schedule/time time - other?

3 2

UN country names in 6 languages
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 14, 2008

Feb. 14, 2008

Hello All, The link to the list below may be useful in thinking about possible fast track IDN labels that correspond to country names. It contains country names in English, French, Spanish, Russian,, Chinese, and Arabic. The names for Russian, Chinese and Arabic are using a non-latin script. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-89-Add1.pdf Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Airport Departure Info
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 14, 2008

Feb. 14, 2008

Dear All, Some useful airport information for your departure. You must have a printed copy of your ticket or itinerary to enter the airport. There is a line to get in - they check that you have a ticket - without proof that you have a plane to catch, they will not let you in the airport. The airport is very congested and under construction. You must stand in many lines and they are all long! Please be at the airport three hours before your flight. Some airlines (e.g. Air France) have small staffs and they close their check in desks two hours before the flight. During the check in process, the airline will put a tag on your hand luggage - if the tag is not on your luggage when you go down the jetway, they will not let you take your hand luggage on the plane. Bon voyage! Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Slide for this morning's reporting
by Avri Doria Feb. 14, 2008

Feb. 14, 2008

Hi, SO's have been restricted to one slide. This is the one slide Im a submitting. a.

1 0

RE: [council] Issue #5 resolution
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

That is my understanding as well. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:48 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Issue #5 resolution Hi, I believe we have all accepted the rewrite of Executive summary #5 to read: We support efforts to determine the feasibility of an interim solution whereby a limited number of countries or territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 list that have special needs would be granted IDN labels in the near term provided that no IDN TLDs associated with countries or territories are introduced earlier than IDN gTLDs without prior community concurrence. does anyone disagree? a.

2 1

GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues
by Avri Doria Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Hi, I wanted to remind us of one thing. The deadline for comments to the ccNSO PDP was extended to 22 Feb, in part to give the GNSO time to complete its responses. I recommend that we resolve our 3 issues as soon as possible so that we can do a 48 last call on the list in time to submit the response on time for the deadline - week Friday. As part of this effort, I also propose that the current issues as discussed this morning are the only issues left to discuss. I have attached the notes i used during the meeting. thanks a.

3 3

RE: [council] Issue #5 resolution
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

And mine. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Issue #5 resolution From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, February 13, 2008 6:19 am To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> That is my understanding as well. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:48 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Issue #5 resolution Hi, I believe we have all accepted the rewrite of Executive summary #5 to read: We support efforts to determine the feasibility of an interim solution whereby a limited number of countries or territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 list that have special needs would be granted IDN labels in the near term provided that no IDN TLDs associated with countries or territories are introduced earlier than IDN gTLDs without prior community concurrence. does anyone disagree? a.

1 0

RE: [council] Issue #9 resolution
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

No disagreement on leaving #9 as is (without Edmon's proposed changes). Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Issue #9 resolution From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, February 13, 2008 6:22 am To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I would like to see confirmation from Tim because he raised the concern. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:46 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Issue #9 resolution does anyone disagree? a. On 13 Feb 2008, at 16:51, Edmon Chung wrote: > I think #9 is resolved unless others feel uncomfortable. > I am ok to leave the wording as the original (without any amendments. > Edmon

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

1 0

RE: [council] Issue #9 resolution
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

I would like to see confirmation from Tim because he raised the concern. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:46 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Issue #9 resolution does anyone disagree? a. On 13 Feb 2008, at 16:51, Edmon Chung wrote: > I think #9 is resolved unless others feel uncomfortable. > I am ok to leave the wording as the original (without any amendments. > Edmon

1 0

Issue #5 resolution
by Avri Doria Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Hi, I believe we have all accepted the rewrite of Executive summary #5 to read: We support efforts to determine the feasibility of an interim solution whereby a limited number of countries or territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 list that have special needs would be granted IDN labels in the near term provided that no IDN TLDs associated with countries or territories are introduced earlier than IDN gTLDs without prior community concurrence. does anyone disagree? a.

1 0

Response to IDNC (Fast Track) Initial Report
by Edmon Chung Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

As discussed earlier in the council meeting today, we would move forward to draft a response from the GNSO to the Initial Report from the IDNC (http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm and http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc-wg-01feb08.p…) The Initial Report is essentially a list of questions intended to solicit public comments. The structure of it is divided into 2 main parts: (1) selection of IDN ccTLD string for Fast Track; (2) designation IDN ccTLD manager. At this stage the Initial Report has been posted and the public comment period will close on February 26, 2008, which is less than 2 weeks from now. Another important note is that the first draft of the "Interim Report" which will include proposed answers to the questions is targeted to be drafted by Feb 29, which is also just around 2 weeks from now. Since the connection for remote participation was challenging, would like to also invite people to participate in the drafting team with this email (and to note that I believe it does not have to be limited to council members). Glen will be starting a mailing list for this and will suggest to convene for a conference call next week. So far, from today's discussion, we would be starting a new mailing list with: myself, Avri, Charles Shaban, Cary and Olga, along with some help from ICANN staff. I believe Olof and Liz has agreed, hopefully Tina can join us as well?... I will work to have a first draft of the response based our ccNSO/GAC issues paper response over this weekend. Edmon PS. Also as discussed during the council meeting and hearing no objection, noting also that the deadline for comment on the Initial Report is Feb 26, whereas our next council meeting is scheduled for Feb 28, we will be requesting for an extension of the comment period for a few days. Should such request be declined, we will attempt to complete our response over mailing list and circulating it on the council list for final review so we could submit our response on Feb 26.

1 0

Reminder - ALAC/GNSO cocktail
by Avri Doria Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Hi Just wanted to remind people that we have an invitation from ALAC to a cocktail hour 1830 - 1930 in Agra. a.

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

If I finally understand this correctly, the question is: a) Should there similarly be only a single IDN ccTLD for a given script for each territory or can there be multiple IDN ccTLD strings? For example, should there be only one equivalent of .cn in Chinese script for China or .ru in Cyrillic for Russia? And the current response is: Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be only one string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script. And the suggested change to the proposed response is: Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be only one string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script., except in those cases where one script is used for multiple languages and governmental policy makes selecting a single string inappropriate. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and collisions due to variants. I am not suggesting we don't answer the question. I am suggesting that we stick with the current response. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, February 13, 2008 12:03 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, The issues report asks a specific question regarding this issue. Are you suggesting that we do not answer the question? Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:32 PM To: Edmon Chung Cc: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment Yes, if we can stick with the original language in this document and let whatever PDP goes forward deal with the gov't policy issue. I don't think we need to go there in this document. Tim Ruiz

2 1

Registrar Constituency Statement with repsect to GNSO Improvements
by Adrian Kinderis Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Registrar Constituency Statement; "After reviewing the Registry Constituency statement and discussing it with them at length, the Registrar Constituency supports that statement with respect to GNSO Improvements. In addition the Registrar Constituency support the existing Recommendations and in particular are pleased that there has been a balance struck between the contracted and non contracted parties." Regards, Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

3 2

BC statement on GNSO reform
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Attached is the BC statement.

2 1