August 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

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

19 Aug '08

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

Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Glen de Saint Géry 18 Aug '08

18 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] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm Please note that ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 13 August 2008 The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). There has been extensive consultation on community travel support. It began as a workshop in Delhi, with comments received and an analysis posted. Further, a draft was posted in June, discussed in budget meetings in Paris, and again with fairly extensive comment in person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments were summarized and analyzed. This last summary is available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html The revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 document http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.… strives to accommodate the community feedback. Of course, this is a subject about which complete agreement is not possible. However, there is strong agreement within the community that a procedure exist that is documented, transparent, consistent, adhered-to, and reviewed/revised for efficacy. Comparing the final procedure with the draft discussed in Paris, some key changes include: - Guarantees travel support for NomCom-nominated counselors - Stresses transparency in application and post-meeting reporting - Allows for some flexibility in the allocation mechanism within a SO without overburdening the Chair The document strives to be complete without being overly-detailed. This will leave many specific questions unanswered. ICANN staff will develop and post a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) to capture questions, and provide consistent answers to the entire community. If you have questions, please send them to the ICANN staff member with whom you work most closely, or send them to travel-support(a)icann.org . Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the first implementation of this procedure, now through the Cairo meeting, and Staff will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will conduct a complete review of the Community Travel Support Procedure at year end with a public consultation at the June ICANN meeting, and this will be an opportunity for RSSAC to provide additional input if desired. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

6 12

GNSO Council Comments on IDNC WG Final Report
by Glen de Saint Géry 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-idnc-initial[at]icann.org] Dear All, Please find the GNSO Council Comments on IDNC WG Final Report that was approved by the GNSO Council and that the Chair, Avri Doria transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors ob 15 August 2008. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/gnso-council-comments-idnc-final-repo… Published on page http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/ Thank you. 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 Tim Ruiz 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

Not true. In fact section 2.1 bullet number six says: While the calculation of travel support funding is based in part on the size of each council and its liaisons, the SO can choose to support other constituency members based on what will best serve each SO’s policy development work, e.g. working group members could be supported. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 8:58 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> The policy has been designed for Council members and restricted to them.

1 0

RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Tim Ruiz 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

Avri, I like that approach. In fact, during discussion with the RrC members is seems there is some general support for the idea of 1 spot for each constituency except that the NCUC would get 2. The other 3 would be for the Chairs of active WGs and/or allocated by the Council as a whole based on need. Also, no matter how the funds are allocated, it should be done transparently so the community at large can see into the process and the reasoning behind the use of the funds. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Fri, August 15, 2008 7:05 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, One other consideration that has been brought up in the past is whether the support needs to be extended to people not in the council. For example, as we start to ask more non council members to chair WGs, will we need to share some of the support with those we ask to chair a WG? If so, and we use a mostly constituency based model as opposed to a purely need based model, might we want to give 1 spot (or 1 equivalent if it goes that way) to each constituency with 2 (or 2 equivalents) held for WG chairs or constituencies with an extra need for an extra council member(s). a.

1 0

Reporting back again...
by Norbert Klein 17 Aug '08

17 Aug '08

Dear GNSO Council Members and related ICANN Staff, sorry to have been absent and to have missed a lot during that time, and not to have done what I should have done. I am confident I can now again regularly read the different mails on the lists and participate again. I am aware that I am not current with many developments, but I will try to read and to update myself. Any special recommendation what to watch out specifically is welcome. See you again in Cairo – I hope. Norbert Klein -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)

3 2

The Future of ICANN: A Series of Regional Consultative Meetings
by Glen de Saint Géry 17 Aug '08

17 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] The Future of ICANN: A Series of Regional Consultative Meetings http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15aug08-en.htm 15 August 2008 A series of regional consultative meetings about crucial changes to ICANN will take place over the next three months in an effort to reach out to and involve the organization's global stakeholders. Four dates had been set so far*, with at least one other due to be announced shortly. They are: Tuesday, 19 August: Montevideo, Uruguay Tuesday, 26 August: Christchurch, New Zealand. Monday, 15 September: Geneva, Switzerland Tuesday, 30 September: Washington DC, United States of America A further date in Africa will be added shortly. The meetings will be a part of ICANN's Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC) consultation that was opened in June following the community's response to the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that ICANN has with the US Department of Commerce. To date, three documents have been produced to guide the IIC consultation: a Transition Action Plan; an Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN document; and an FAQ. All three documents have been produced by the President's Strategy Committee (PSC) of ICANN and they are currently under review by the PSC following a first public comment period that closed on 31 July. The regional consultative meetings will explain the IIC consultation and its aims, and encourage discussion and debate surrounding a number of measures for improving confidence in ICANN both as an organization and as a model for coordinating the Internet's unique identifiers. At least one member of the PSC and one ICANN staff person will be present at each meeting and will help manage it. More details on the meetings and the consultation can be found online at http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/regional-meetings.htm. Any questions about the meetings or process should be sent to iic(a)icann.org. ICANN encourages all those in the community to try to take part in one of the sessions and looks forward to engaging with its stakeholders over the next few months. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * With the exception of Washington, the dates coincide with existing meetings where Internet community members and those interested in ICANN issues are already expected to attend. 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 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

The amount shown for GNSO is $185,000, ostensibly for 12 councillors at economy rates, and the chair at business class rates (this includes the amount for the three NomCom appointees which was previously in the NomCom budget. In fact, the $185k reflects just 1 business + 11 economy. 1 x 8,800 + 11 x 4,800 = 184,800, rounded to 185k 1 x 8,800 + 12 x 4,800 = 199,200, rounded to 199k Am I missing something here or have been effectively shortchanged by $14k? (Other groups are similarly underfunded by one person.) Alan

2 2

Fwd: Formal response from GNSO Council
by Avri Doria 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

I sent this from an address that does not have GNSO council mailing list access. a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se> > Date: 15 August 2008 11:04:05 EDT > To: idn-cctld-fast-track(a)icann.org > Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: Formal response from GNSO Council > > To the ICANN Board of Directors, > > The GNSO Council has developed the attached comments related to the > IDNC WG Final Report and its recommendations. These comments were > approved by the GNSO Council on 14 August 2008. > > Thank You > > Avri Doria > Chair, GNSO Council > > > > >

1 0

Bulk Transfer of gTLD Names Formerly Managed by De-Accredited Registrar DotForce Corp.
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 Aug '08

15 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] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14aug08-en.htm Bulk Transfer of gTLD Names Formerly Managed by De-Accredited Registrar DotForce Corp. 14 August 2008 As a result of the de-accreditation of registrar DotForce Corp., ICANN initiated a process to identify a gaining registrar to receive the gTLD names that had been formerly managed by DotForce Corp. In accordance with ICANN's Interim Terminated Registrar Transition Procedure (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-06jun08-en.htm), on 6 June 2008, ICANN initiated a Request for Statements of Interest (RFI) from registrars interested in receiving the names. ICANN received eight statements of interest from registrars in response to the RFI. As a result of the procedure, ICANN selected Yesnic Co., Ltd. to receive the bulk transfer from DotForce Corp. The gTLD registries that have registered DotForce names have taken steps to effect the bulk transfers. Former registrant-customers of DotForce Corp. should soon receive notices of the transfer from Yesnic Co., Ltd. Customer questions about the transfer should be directed to Yesnic Co., Ltd. Contact information is available at: http://www.internic.net/registrars/registrar-100.html. FAQs Q. Why was this transfer authorized by ICANN? A. DotForce Corp's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) expired and DotForce was not eligible for renewal due to RAA compliance issues. As a result, DotForce was no longer permitted to register or manage gTLD registrations. In order to protect the customers of DotForce Corp., ICANN initiated this process to identify a new ICANN-accredited registrar to manage the registrations. Q. Will Yesnic Co., Ltd. attempt to contact the affected registrants? What should current/former DotForce Corp. customers do? A. Former customers of DotForce Corp. should receive a notice of the transfer and instructions for continued management of their names from Yesnic Co., Ltd. Affected customers who do not receive notices from Yesnic should contact Yesnic directly, using the information provided at http://www.internic.net/registrars/registrar-100.html. Q. Do registrants have to pay a fee for the bulk transfer? A. No, there is no cost to registrants for the bulk transfer. Unlike a normal inter-registrar transfer, the registration terms will not be extended by a year. Accordingly, it is important to contact Yesnic Co., Ltd. if your registration will expire soon in order to maintain your registration. Q. Why do former DotForce customers need to contact Yesnic Co., Ltd.? A. DotForce Corp. did not participate in the bulk transfer and did not share data with Yesnic Co., Ltd. Accordingly, all registrants must provide updated billing information or transfer their names to other registrars.. Q. What if former DotForce customers want to use a different registrar? A. Registrants will continue to be able to transfer their registrations to other registrars under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (see http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/). Note that Yesnic Co., Ltd. may deny transfers for the first 60 days following the bulk transfer, at Yesnic's discretion. This 60-day period is permissible under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, and is intended to help protect registrants. Names that will expire during the first 60 days following the transfer to Yesnic Co., Ltd. should be renewed by the registrant by contacting Yesnic using the information provided at http://www.internic.net/registrars/registrar-100.html. Q. How will DotForce Corp. customers know if a message purportedly from Yesnic Co., Ltd. is legitimate? A. The message from Yesnic should direct you to their website hosted at http://www.yesnic.com or refer you to other contact information listed at http://www.internic.net/registrars/registrar-100.html. For general advice about avoiding phishing email messages, you may also wish to refer to the materials prepared by the Anti-Phishing Working Group (see http://www.antiphishing.org/consumer_recs.html). Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0