August 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Tim Ruiz 20 Aug '08

20 Aug '08

Zahid, If the policy work of ICANN is not core to your business, why are you involved? For example, IP protection seems to me to be a major purpose of many of the PDPs we get involved in. That is no doubt core to the business of any IP lawyer involved here, and at least a core concern of any of the commercial users involved here. You also make the assumption that ICANN's revenue comes from Registrars and Registries. It's true that they are the mechanism through which those funds are collected. But ultimately they come from registrants. Registrars and Registries, just like the commercial users involved here, have the ability to pass on their costs to their customers. Seems to me the only ones left holding the bag are individual users who have no one to pass their costs on too. Perhaps we should offer to donate our travel funds to the ALAC. And I would like to point out that most accredited registrars are not raking in huge revenues and profits. In fact, I would venture to say that many of us on this Council have personal annual incomes greater than the total annual revenue of many accredited registrars struggling in a highly competitive market. To Philip's points, I do believe that the amount of travel funding to the GNSO given the revenue generated by its constituents doesn't make sense in relation to what is given to the other SOs. Not that I think the GNSO should get more, but the other SOs should get considerably less if anything. If someone suggested that ICANN should give the GNSO back 7%-14% of its budget contribution to assist with expenses of any nature they'd likely be laughed out of the room. Yet that is exactly what the other SOs are getting. So I would not support bemoaning this policy with the purpose of asking for more money, and the RrC is not likely to support that either. But I would consider joining in on an effort to bring the other SOs travel budgets in line and would promote that to the RrC - or alternatively and preferrably, to just can the whole concept altogether. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: "Zahid Jamil" <zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com> Date: Wed, August 20, 2008 10:02 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Dear All, It is good to join the Council and this discussion. First of all I think it is a shame that the Travel Support allocated is so little and so structured that it seems clear that greater thought ought have been given to the quantum and structure of the allocation or at least the guidance as to how it is to be allocated. In any case, now that we are confronted with the situation I would agree with Mike in that, for R & R constituencies this is their bread and butter and constitutes core business. Which is not the case for other constituencies for whom there is more of a challenge to participate. I may be new but for an Organisation the revenue of which comes from the R & R’s to donate back money to the R & R’s so that can attend its policy making meetings seems circular and to me it is not clear what rational purpose that would serve. It would also seem that another purpose of the GNSO having representative constituencies is to create a balance between the interests of suppliers (ie. R&R’s) with the other constituencies (users). But if the funding is not made available to these balancing reps it may leave the other constituencies who cannot justify this as a core business from effectively participating and maintaining the balance in the GNSO. I think we should think about the actual purpose behind ICANN making the funding available. The funding it seems to me is for outreach and to get more representation of those for whom this does not represent a core business activity. As such the other constituencies (other than R & R) should get more allocation of the funds. Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 19 August 2008 21:43 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 A strong argument can be made that Registry and Registrar Constituencies should not get any travel funding from ICANN for the meetings. The point of travel support is to ensure that a full slate of advisory volunteers appears for the meetings. The R and R reps normally would attend and participate anyway, as part of their normal business, which is not true for any of the other Constituencies. Also, the Registry and Registrar Constituencies do not have as much problem with outreach for members, since ICANN contracts are fundamental to their businesses. So they ought to be more able to use Constituency funding for travel than is true for the lesser funded "other" Constituencies. As a compromise for Cairo, perhaps those two Constituencies should receive half the funding of the other Constituencies, so that more is available for the other Constituencies and for WG chairs that are not from contracting parties. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 I don't really think there are any errors, although I agree that the document could have included some additional information that may have clarified. In any case, my proposal for Cairo would be the same. Allow at least one spot per constituency and let them decide how to allocate it. The ACs take care of their own as instructed in the policy, and per the policy the liaisons are covered outside of the 10 additional spots. That would be six for the Constituencies, one for the GNSO Chair, and three for the Council as a whole to decide. But regardless of how we do it, basing it on supporting Councilors who simply say they would/could not otherwise attend is not appropriate. Let the Constituencies decide if they want to support one of their Councilors' travel, or someone else they feel is important to have there. I propose that the two or three spots left should not to go Councilors but instead be considered for the Chairs of the WGs first, and then to others the Chairs of the WGs might suggest would be good to have in Cairo to the benefit of their policy work. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 8:54 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it. As Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and for that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot. In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I have already found and reported two errors there). The first column explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased the number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison folk, that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible rounding error of dividing an odd number does now). In any case, I expect that staff will clarify. Alan At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column of the >chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of the >remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the Chair makes >10. That seems to add up right to me. > >The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy. What the >Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy around >allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems to be an >automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the policy is >*very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors (see the >sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy). > >So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the Constituencies to >each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs of its >members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best contribute >to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the Council as a >whole to allocate. > >However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the NCUC and >there appears to be some support for that within the RrC (ultimately, >if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote the voice >of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of WGs that >are active at the time be given preference for the remaining two or >three spots. > > >Tim > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for >FY09 >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm >To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >All of which follows is my understanding only. Alan > >At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > >Well its good to see the maths has improved. > >In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who. > >I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that it > >applies to only elected > >Council members. > >This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another budget), > >NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new >Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th >bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly increase >above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to be in >the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at least >the budget is presented as if it has). > > > and excludes liaisons who > >should be funded by their own base organisation's budget. > >The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was >augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only has >21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for funding >under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money >cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom appointees. In >my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo meeting. >Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding from the >GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess) goes into >the general GNSO pool. > >After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison by an >ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO budget. >If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would be >eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling >between the ALAC and GNSO). > >If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC funding >in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for at >least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status (unless >that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case they >would remain fully funded). > >Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent policy. > >Alan > > >This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway. > >Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that should be > >done by constituency - the > >body best placed to determine need. > > > >There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these > >limited funds that those > >parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of ICANN > >policy may wish to > >consider before accepting funding. > >Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as a > >function to our recently > >growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an interesting question. > >Philip

1 0

CBUC representative's statement of interest
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Aug '08

20 Aug '08

Dear Councillors, Please note that the new CBUC representative, Zahid Jamil from Pakistan, has submitted a statement of Interest: http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/jamil-soi-28jun08.shtml Which is posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reunión de información sobre la Suplantación de nombres en los ataques de phishing
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Aug '08

20 Aug '08

Hola a todos, Les queremos invitar a una reunión de información organizada por Dave Piscitello del comité de asesores de seguridad y estabilidad de ICANN (Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)) sobre la Suplantación de nombres en los ataques de phishing (Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks). La reunión será el 26 de Agosto a las 1300 UTC. Lo interpretará simultaneamente en lengua española y francesa así como una grabación de audio. Véase la página web de este reunión telefónica para ver las instrucciones de participación y el boletín del SSAC sobre este tema. Tambien hay un enlace para asistir a la presentación en Adobe Connect. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrar_impersonation_in_phishing_att… ¿Que es la Suplantación de nombres en los ataques de phishing? El atacante se hace pasar por un registrador de nombres de dominio y envía una correspondencia esperada o no a un cliente del registrador (un registrante) sobre un asunto relacionado con el nombre de dominio. Como ejemplos de correspondencia esperada podríamos mencionar: una notificación del vencimiento pendiente del registro de un nombre de dominio, un mensaje promocional enviado por correo electrónico, una notificación para informar al registrante sobre un problema en la administración de una cuenta o, en general, cualquier tipo de correspondencia que requiera o reclame la atención inmediata del cliente. Sin embargo, la correspondencia es falsa. El atacante crea un sitio web que es engañosamente similar al sitio del registrador a fin de inducir al cliente a tener acceso a su cuenta de administración de dominio y a que le revele inadvertidamente las credenciales de su cuenta. El atacante utilizará las credenciales que obtuvo del cliente para tener acceso a la cartera de nombres de dominio del cliente, alterar la información del sistema de nombres de dominio de esa cuenta y utilizar los dominios para secundar otros ataques. Cordialmente, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Invitation to SSAC Briefing on Registrar Impersonation
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Aug '08

20 Aug '08

On behalf of the ALAC Dear all, We would like to invite you to a briefing attended by Dave Piscitello from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) on Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks. The briefing will be on August 26th at 1300 UTC. The meeting will be recorded and there will be simultaneous interpretation in French and Spanish. Please find the SSAC Advisory on Registrar Impersonation and participation instructions on the meeting page. There is also a link to follow this presentation using Adobe Connect. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrar_impersonation_in_phishing_att… What is Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks? The attacker impersonates a domain name registrar and sends an expected or anticipated correspondence to a registrar's customer (a registrant) regarding a domain name related matter. Examples of expected correspondence include a notice of pending expiration of a domain name registration, a promotional email, a notice informing the registrant of an account management issue, or generally, any correspondence that requires or encourages a customer's immediate attention. The correspondence, however, is bogus. The phisher creates a web site that is deceptively similar to the registrar's site to induce the customer into accessing his domain management account and unwittingly disclose his account credentials to the phisher. The phisher will use the customer's captured credentials to access the customer's domain name portfolio, alter DNS information of domain name(s) in that account and use the domains to abet additional attacks. Regards, Matthias Langenegger At-Large Coordination Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Greg Ruth 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding should be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to support WG chairs. I believe the original intent was not to progress WG efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders (constituencies) have an *equal* opportunity to participate. (I would think that a responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to participate *before* accepting the position.) Therefore, I am in favor of dividing the funding more or less equally among the consituencies and letting each decide how it can best support representation at ICANN meetings.

3 3

RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Tim Ruiz 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

I wasn't sure about how that works since the NCA travel is covered as economy, but the GNSO Chair is supposed to get Business. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 10:45 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, Just one clarification. As I am an NCA, I do not believe my support as chair needs to come out of the 10. a. On 19 Aug 2008, at 11:34, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > I don't really think there are any errors, although I agree that the > document could have included some additional information that may have > clarified. > > In any case, my proposal for Cairo would be the same. Allow at least > one > spot per constituency and let them decide how to allocate it. The ACs > take care of their own as instructed in the policy, and per the policy > the liaisons are covered outside of the 10 additional spots. > > That would be six for the Constituencies, one for the GNSO Chair, and > three for the Council as a whole to decide. > > But regardless of how we do it, basing it on supporting Councilors who > simply say they would/could not otherwise attend is not appropriate. > Let > the Constituencies decide if they want to support one of their > Councilors' travel, or someone else they feel is important to have > there. I propose that the two or three spots left should not to go > Councilors but instead be considered for the Chairs of the WGs first, > and then to others the Chairs of the WGs might suggest would be good > to > have in Cairo to the benefit of their policy work. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for > FY09 > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 8:54 am > To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it. As > Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and for > that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot. > > In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I have > already found and reported two errors there). The first column > explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme > example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased the > number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison folk, > that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible > rounding error of dividing an odd number does now). > > In any case, I expect that staff will clarify. > > Alan > > At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >> Alan, >> >> Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column of the >> chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of the >> remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the Chair >> makes >> 10. That seems to add up right to me. >> >> The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy. What the >> Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy >> around >> allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems to >> be an >> automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the policy is >> *very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors (see >> the >> sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy). >> >> So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the Constituencies to >> each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs of its >> members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best >> contribute >> to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the Council >> as a >> whole to allocate. >> >> However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the NCUC and >> there appears to be some support for that within the RrC (ultimately, >> if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote the >> voice >> of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of WGs >> that >> are active at the time be given preference for the remaining two or >> three spots. >> >> >> Tim >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for >> FY09 >> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >> Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm >> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> >> All of which follows is my understanding only. Alan >> >> At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: >> >>> Well its good to see the maths has improved. >>> In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who. >>> I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that it >>> applies to only elected >>> Council members. >>> This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another budget), >> >> NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new >> Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th >> bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly increase >> above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to be in >> the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at least >> the budget is presented as if it has). >> >>> and excludes liaisons who >>> should be funded by their own base organisation's budget. >> >> The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was >> augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only has >> 21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for funding >> under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money >> cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom appointees. In >> my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo meeting. >> Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding from the >> GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess) goes into >> the general GNSO pool. >> >> After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison by an >> ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO budget. >> If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would be >> eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling >> between the ALAC and GNSO). >> >> If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC funding >> in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for at >> least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status (unless >> that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case they >> would remain fully funded). >> >> Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent policy. >> >> Alan >> >>> This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway. >>> Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that should be >>> done by constituency - the >>> body best placed to determine need. >>> >>> There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these >>> limited funds that those >>> parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of ICANN >>> policy may wish to >>> consider before accepting funding. >>> Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as a >>> function to our recently >>> growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an interesting >>> question. >>> Philip > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Tim Ruiz 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

The point is that this is not just for Councilors. All constituencies should have an equal opportunity to be sure they are represented at the meetings in a way they feel best enhances their participation in the policy development processes. If the goal of travel support funding is "to lower the barrier to participation, broaden the group of participants and, advance the "work" of ICANN" as stated in the policy, then that should apply to the contracted parties as well as anyone else. What you suggest is not a compromise. It undervalues the participation of two constituencies that are highly impacted by the policy process, and implies that there are no contracted parties who may be barred from participation at ICANN meetings due to the expense. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 11:43 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> A strong argument can be made that Registry and Registrar Constituencies should not get any travel funding from ICANN for the meetings. The point of travel support is to ensure that a full slate of advisory volunteers appears for the meetings. The R and R reps normally would attend and participate anyway, as part of their normal business, which is not true for any of the other Constituencies. Also, the Registry and Registrar Constituencies do not have as much problem with outreach for members, since ICANN contracts are fundamental to their businesses. So they ought to be more able to use Constituency funding for travel than is true for the lesser funded "other" Constituencies. As a compromise for Cairo, perhaps those two Constituencies should receive half the funding of the other Constituencies, so that more is available for the other Constituencies and for WG chairs that are not from contracting parties. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 I don't really think there are any errors, although I agree that the document could have included some additional information that may have clarified. In any case, my proposal for Cairo would be the same. Allow at least one spot per constituency and let them decide how to allocate it. The ACs take care of their own as instructed in the policy, and per the policy the liaisons are covered outside of the 10 additional spots. That would be six for the Constituencies, one for the GNSO Chair, and three for the Council as a whole to decide. But regardless of how we do it, basing it on supporting Councilors who simply say they would/could not otherwise attend is not appropriate. Let the Constituencies decide if they want to support one of their Councilors' travel, or someone else they feel is important to have there. I propose that the two or three spots left should not to go Councilors but instead be considered for the Chairs of the WGs first, and then to others the Chairs of the WGs might suggest would be good to have in Cairo to the benefit of their policy work. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 8:54 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it. As Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and for that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot. In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I have already found and reported two errors there). The first column explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased the number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison folk, that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible rounding error of dividing an odd number does now). In any case, I expect that staff will clarify. Alan At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column of the >chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of the >remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the Chair makes >10. That seems to add up right to me. > >The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy. What the >Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy around >allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems to be an >automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the policy is >*very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors (see the >sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy). > >So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the Constituencies to >each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs of its >members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best contribute >to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the Council as a >whole to allocate. > >However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the NCUC and >there appears to be some support for that within the RrC (ultimately, >if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote the voice >of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of WGs that >are active at the time be given preference for the remaining two or >three spots. > > >Tim > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for >FY09 >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm >To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >All of which follows is my understanding only. Alan > >At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > >Well its good to see the maths has improved. > >In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who. > >I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that it > >applies to only elected > >Council members. > >This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another budget), > >NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new >Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th >bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly increase >above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to be in >the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at least >the budget is presented as if it has). > > > and excludes liaisons who > >should be funded by their own base organisation's budget. > >The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was >augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only has >21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for funding >under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money >cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom appointees. In >my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo meeting. >Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding from the >GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess) goes into >the general GNSO pool. > >After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison by an >ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO budget. >If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would be >eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling >between the ALAC and GNSO). > >If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC funding >in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for at >least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status (unless >that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case they >would remain fully funded). > >Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent policy. > >Alan > > >This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway. > >Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that should be > >done by constituency - the > >body best placed to determine need. > > > >There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these > >limited funds that those > >parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of ICANN > >policy may wish to > >consider before accepting funding. > >Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as a > >function to our recently > >growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an interesting question. > >Philip

1 0

FYI Links to ICANN Fellowship terms & At-Large travel rules.
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

Dear All, FYI The following are links to ICANN Fellowship terms and conditions, FAQs, and At-Large travel rules. <http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/terms-and-conditions.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/> <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?policies_and_procedures> Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Alan Greenberg 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it. As Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and for that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot. In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I have already found and reported two errors there). The first column explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased the number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison folk, that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible rounding error of dividing an odd number does now). In any case, I expect that staff will clarify. Alan At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column of the >chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of the >remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the Chair makes >10. That seems to add up right to me. > >The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy. What the >Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy around >allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems to be an >automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the policy is >*very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors (see the >sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy). > >So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the Constituencies to >each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs of its >members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best contribute >to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the Council as a >whole to allocate. > >However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the NCUC and >there appears to be some support for that within the RrC (ultimately, >if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote the voice >of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of WGs that >are active at the time be given preference for the remaining two or >three spots. > > >Tim > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for >FY09 >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm >To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >All of which follows is my understanding only. Alan > >At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > >Well its good to see the maths has improved. > >In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who. > >I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that it > >applies to only elected > >Council members. > >This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another budget), > >NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new >Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th >bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly increase >above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to be in >the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at least >the budget is presented as if it has). > > > and excludes liaisons who > >should be funded by their own base organisation's budget. > >The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was >augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only has >21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for funding >under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money >cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom appointees. In >my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo meeting. >Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding from the >GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess) goes into >the general GNSO pool. > >After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison by an >ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO budget. >If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would be >eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling >between the ALAC and GNSO). > >If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC funding >in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for at >least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status (unless >that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case they >would remain fully funded). > >Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent policy. > >Alan > > >This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway. > >Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that should be > >done by constituency - the > >body best placed to determine need. > > > >There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these > >limited funds that those > >parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of ICANN > >policy may wish to > >consider before accepting funding. > >Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as a > >function to our recently > >growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an interesting question. > >Philip

1 0

FW: ccNSO Phishing survey results
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Dear All, Please note that the ccNSO phishing survey report is posted at: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/surveys/phishing-issues-survey-results-jun08.pdf The survey was conducted in spring -08, the results presented at the Paris meeting and the report published early August. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0