September 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Action Items from GNSO Council meeting 4 September 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Dear Councilors, Please note the immediate action items that arose from the Council meeting today, Thursday 4 September 2008. 1. Councilors should forward WHOIS Hypotheses Study Group report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable in preparation for preliminary discussion in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c… 2. Council representatives are asked to forward the recommendations of the ICANN Geographic Regions report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-geographic-regions-26aug08.pdf to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008. 3. Comments are invited on the ALAC Review which comment period closes on 12 September 2008. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#alac-rev-jul08 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] RAA Amendments discussion
by Mike Rodenbaugh Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Hi Chuck, Your position is complicated by the facts that this contract negotiation affects hundreds of different registrars, only some of whom are represented in the Registrar Constituency. More importantly, those hundreds of registrars have millions of contracts with registrants represented by other constituencies, who are directly impacted by the RAA. Changes to the RAA are, in effect, changes to DNS policy. There ought to have been better methods and greater effort to involve the users in these discussions. But since you are suggesting that we should choose specific issues for further policy development, I guess we have no other choice. -Mike _____ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:19 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Amendments discussion Mike, It is the responsibility of the GNSO to develop policy, not negotiate contracts. A community wide negotiations process would be a very strange model and one that would be fraught with problems and likely totally unfeasible. Comment opportunities were provided as you indicate and that is as it should be, but the negotiations process needs to be between the contracting parties. At the same time, if there are issues in the RAA that seem worthy of policy development, we have procedures for that. If consensus policy is developed within the picket fence and approved by the Board, then registries and registrars are required to implement them. Therefore it seems to me that the proper approach would be for the GNSO to focus on specific policy issues rather than contract terms except for contract terms that involve already established consensus policy and for which compliance is in question. Chuck _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:01 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] RAA Amendments discussion Hi all, I see 15 mins on tomorrow's agenda for this topic, and only a link to this letter from the US Government to the Chair of the ICANN Board. http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/pdfXG2oUDNceq.pdf. I have no idea what our discussion was going to be about, and so I try to kick off a talk on the list. I appreciate the letter and hope we as a Council can respond by moving WHOIS studies forward at long last, and meanwhile (at minimum) formally object to the newly proposed RAA amendments wrt WHOIS proxy services. The entire RAA amendment "process" has not involved the GNSO. Instead there have been two very long rounds of bi-lateral negotiations between ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency. There was one round of public comment in between (though it is difficult to understand how public comments played any significant role in the second draft), and one just closed wrt the second draft. The RAA amendments involve many changes to existing gTLD policy as embodied in the existing, many-year old RAA. Public comments from several constituencies indicate substantial disagreement with many of the suggested amendments. The Council really should consider the proposed amendments formally and with the goal of consensus comments, and to record constituency and/or minority comments. Yet this may be far too late at this point, it is unclear what the "process" is and how GNSO might impact it, and some of the RAA amendments are unobjectionable and should be implemented immediately. Still, some of the suggested amendments are completely unacceptable. So we need to figure out a way to formally register those concerns and ensure they will be heard, while not unduly stalling the entire process. The only other option would be to request Issues Reports on various of the suggested amendments? Thanks, Mike

2 1

Revised GNSO Council teleconference 4 September 2008 MP3 recording
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held 4 September, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20080904.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference 4 September 2008 MP3 recording
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held 4 September, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-200780904.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4 September
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

We have not had sufficient opportunity to debate the concept of *need.* A single meeting and a few notes on the list only scratches surfice. I propose that such debate needs to take place before the allocation of any of the travel funds. For example, the two contracted party constituencies and the three commercial user constituencies claim to represent businesses or associations that rake in hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in revenue, profits, or membership fees. A half hour looking at the membership claimed by each and the financial/membership reports that are publicly available make that clear. This is not about whose employer is willing to fund who. This is about the ability of the constituencies to raise the necessary money to fund itself, including necessary travel. It is clear that at least the five constituencies mentioned above have that ability IF they truly represent the membership claimed and IF those constituents are truly in agreement on the importance of the GNSO's policy work. The travel funds do not roll over year to year, but they do meeting to meeting. Using funds unnecessarily now may only make fewer funds available later for those that may truly have a *need* however we ultimately decide to define it. Right now, any statement of need I have seen (including the registrars) is in reality just a statement of *want.* If there is no support for waiting, and I guess the special meeting made that clear, then I would like to propose we amend the motion to allow only one funded party per constituency. It is irrespondible and short sighted of us to do anything otherwise right now. Finally, I also think that any Councilor that is being proposed to receive funding in this motion or an amended motion should not be eligible to vote on that motion. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4 September From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Thu, August 28, 2008 2:41 pm To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, Following this morning's meeting, I have entered the text below on the motions page. In it I note that the meeting reached rough consensus on the proposal with one person dissenting. The dissenting view involved a request that the NCUC be notified that they should reconsider having only provided two names for the list given the fact that not all candidates on other constituency's lists were there because of need. Other participants in the meeting countered that given the requirement that a resolution needed to be submitted by end of day 4 September, we should not reopen the process of submitting names. The NCUC member attending the meeting agreed that the process should not be reopened. It should be noted that because the recommendation includes recognition of the fact that two council members are Nomcom members and that they would be traveling under the Nomcom budget with supplemental support from the DNSO/GNSO fund, the list only contains 12 instead of 13 names. Other issues that were brought up in the discussion: - That while it was reasonable to give each constituency one travel slot, all other travel slots should depend upon need. - the question of whether self declaration of need sufficient or should need be demonstrated in some manner? - that it should be possible to split one travel slot between two travelers. Other discussions involved the meaning of 'attending all SO session' and whether it was ok for one participant to miss the first day because of work obligations and travel time. - Some argued that the meeting requirements should be defined as only the week of formal meetings. - There was one participant who stated that the support was for full participation and that the money should only be used on people who could attend all sessions. - Several argued for flexibility The meeting reached rough consensus for a definition of 'all SO sessions' as including the weekend's sessions before the formal meeting began and for flexibility for those who could not arrive in time for Saturday's meetings. As stated in the motion, it was also made clear that this was a one time procedure and that for future meetings, further discussion would be required. It was also made clear that the current process of using the Travel Policy as defined was born out of necessity and did not represent GNSO council agreement with the Travel Policy as currently defined. As the motion evolved from the meeting which I chaired, I have listed myself as making the motion. It still needs to be seconded. As always, comments, corrections and clarifications are invited as are discussion on the motion itself. a. ---- Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo Motion: Avri Doria Second: Whereas: (note on the version on https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_sept_2008_motions # several of the whereas statement have hyperlinks to the appropriate documents and emails) * On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and * On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and * On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and * On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and * On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance,and * That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and * In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway. Resolved: 1. The following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008: Name Constituency/NCA Reason Class of travel Bing, Jon NCA NCA Economy Cavalli, Olga NCA NCA Economy Doria, Avri NCA Council chair Business Gross, Robin NCUC Constituency 1st choice Economy Harris, Tony ISPC Constituency 1st choice Economy Hoover, Carolyn RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy Jamil,Zahid BC Financial Need Economy Klein, Norbert NCUC Financial Need Economy Rossette, Kristina IPC Financial Need Expenses Only Rodenbaugh, Mike BC Constituency 1st choice Economy Sheppard, Philip BC On Principle Economy Walton, Clarke RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy 2. That the level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GSNO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive in time for meetings on 1 Novemeber 2008. 3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thrusday of ICANN week as members of the Nomcom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds.

2 2

Absentee vote on Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions PDP
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Dear Councilors, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the meeting today, Thursday 4 September, are invited to send the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org> a request for a ballot. Councilors noted as absent: Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Carlos Souza, Adrian Kinderis, Tom Keller, Edmon Chung and Norbert Klein. (Norbert Klein was disconnected from the call at the time of the vote due to bad weather conditions.) You will then be sent a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, so please indicate your reason for abstaining. This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 14:25 UTC on Thursday 4 September 2008. Completed ballots are due NLT 14:25 UTC, Sunday, 7 September 2008 (10:25 EDT, 11:25 Rio de Janeiro, 15:25 London, 16:25 Germany, 21:25 Phnom Penh, 22:25 HongKong, 00:25 Melbourne Monday 8 September 2008) Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) Moved: Avri Doria Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: On 20 November 2007, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy; and this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 April 2008; http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf and the GNSO Council, in its deliberations regarding the Final Report, resolved to launch a drafting group to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed; and the drafting group reached consensus on new texts for two of the denial reasons (8 and 9), while reaching agreement that the two other denial reasons (5 and 7) required a more in-depth review than mere clarifications of the originally intended meaning, and that such a review could preferably be undertaken as part of the scope of the foreseen IRTP PDP Resolved: 1. That Denial reason #8 in which the current test reads: A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period Be amended to read: The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name. 2. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads: A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). Be amended to read: A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy. 3. That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads: No payment for previous registration period (including credit-card chargebacks) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer. Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP. 4 That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Results of Travel Policy meeting and motion for 4 September
by Philip Sheppard Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Tim, Some thoughts. I share your concern about Council voting for funds for itself. No constituency benefitting from funds should vote. ..... ahhh. 2. Discussion on need seems to be raised only by us. It is NOT in the travel policy. It is therefore off topic. 3. There are privacy issues also wrt to organisations and budgets. 4. Please do not be so naïve to believe that a trade association or consultant representing a multi-national shares the multinationals profits. Philip

1 0

ICANN bylaws section 8c Absentee voting
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Dear Councillors, Please note that the ICANN bylaws now reflect the section on Absentee voting: http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-29may08.htm#X section 8. Except as provided by paragraph 6 of this Section, the GNSO Council shall act at meetings. c. Absentee voting. Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on whether to initiate a PDP, forward a policy recommendation to the Board, or fill a position open for election may vote by absentee ballot. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

FW: Today´s GNSO call
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Forwarded: Hi Glen: Just to let you know that unfortunately I wont make it to the call today because this 12:00 UTC (9AM Brasilia time) time strikes in the middle of my morning classes at FGV. I have two classes to teach on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, one from 7:30 to 9:10 AM and the other from 9:20 to 11:00AM. On a positive note I was able to gather funding for all my expenses related to the trip to Cairo, so I am all set up for the ICANN meeting. I will be staying at the Intercontinental CityStar, arriving on Friday night in order to attend the GNSO meeting next day and leaving on November 8th. Please send my appologies to the other councilors. Best, Carlos

1 0

Board Resolution on Council restructuring, FYI
by Denise Michel Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

ICANN's Board approved the following resolution at its 28 August meeting by a vote of 13-0: Whereas, on 26 June 2008, the ICANN Board endorsed the set of "GNSO Improvements" submitted by the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group (BGC-WG), with the exception of the BGC-WG's recommendation on GNSO Council restructuring. Whereas, in postponing its decision on Council structure, the Board asked the GNSO to convene a small working group to "Submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring by no later than 25 July 2008 for consideration by the ICANN Board ..." (see ICANN Board Resolution 2008.06.26.13). Whereas, that Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR) submitted a report to the Board in late July detailing areas of consensus that it achieved during its month-long deliberations. Whereas, the Board discussed the WG-GCR report at its 31 July meeting and directed the ICANN Staff to thoroughly review the report and share its recommendations with the Board prior to the 28 August Board meeting. Whereas, the Board will endeavor to work through the remaining issues during the next Board meeting. Resolved, on balance, the WG-GCR report addresses many challenges facing the community in a way that is consistent with the overarching goals of the GNSO Improvements package and the BGC GNSO Review WG that developed it. Resolved, the Board endorses the direction of the WG-GCR report and supports the bicameral voting structure of the new Council. The Board supports the establishment of one house (described as the "contracted party house" in the report) and directs that this house initially will have 3 representatives from each stakeholder group -- Registrars and Registries -- plus 1 voting NCA (Nominating Committee appointee). The second house (described in the report as the "non-contracted party" house) will be composed of 6 representatives from each stakeholder group -- Commercial and Non-commercial -- plus 1 voting NCA. Resolved, as noted, the Board accepts the WG-GCR proposal to seat one voting NCA representative in each of the two houses. The Board also directs that a third "independent" NCA representative continue to serve on the Council. Resolved, the Board directs the GNSO Council to work with ICANN Staff on an implementation plan for Board approval that creates a transition to this new structure by the beginning of calendar year 2009. The Board requests that existing constituencies confirm their status with the Board during the intervening time period, and requires constituencies to formally confirm their status every 3 years to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of Article X, Section 5, subsection 3 of the ICANN Bylaws. This will be an opportunity for existing constituencies to demonstrate compliance with the principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness set forth in the ICANN Bylaws. The Board also encourages new constituencies to submit requests for certification, especially during this transition period. Resolved, the Board appreciates the significant amount of work performed by the WG-GCR and extends its sincere appreciation to working group members Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes, Alan Greenberg, Tony Holmes, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Steve Metalitz, Milton Mueller, Jonathon Nevett, and Philip Sheppard for their efforts on this matter. -------------- The resolution has been posted as part of the preliminary report of last week's Board meeting at <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/>. I will discuss the Board's action at tomorrow's Council meeting. Regards, Denise -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org

1 0