January 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: At-Large working group on NCSG meeting
by Avri Doria Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

Hi, While the GNSO is figuring out what it wants to do, and Philip's suggestion may be the way to go, the ALAC is in the process of scheduling a meeting. I have been told this meeting, when scheduled, will be open. Assuming I can make the schedule, I plan on attending as an observer for the time being. Unless Alan does so before me, I will let the council know when this meeting is scheduled. thanks a. On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 09:15 +1100, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > > At the last ALAC teleconference it was decided to create an > At-Large/GNSO working group on the new Non-Commercial Stakeholder's > Group (NCSG) in the GNSO. While the ALAC Chair is awaiting a response > from the GNSO Chair on the next steps on this matter, it is suggested > that the eight At-Large members meet for a first time this week to > discuss and draft an ALAC advise to the Board on the NCSG. > > The eight At-Large members that are being asked to be a part of this > WG are: D Younger, B Brendler, C Langdon-Orr, C Aguirre, S Bachollet, > B Schombe, V Scartezini, A Greenberg

1 0

Reminder: Motions for 29 January
by Avri Doria Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

Hi, Just a reminder that any motions to be considered at next week's meeting be added to the Wiki and sent to the council by 1900 UTC Thursday 22 Jan. thanks a.

1 0

commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
by Robin Gross Jan. 19, 2009

Jan. 19, 2009

Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list, so will an NCUC Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you! Robin ---- Dear GNSO Councilors: It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have competing and often conflicting interests. We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO. Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the Board. We have no objection in principle to working with At large members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also note that individual or organizational At Large members may also be commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the definition of our structure. The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite obviously, the right approach. Best, Robin Gross Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org

3 4

Travel fund distribution for Mexico
by Olga Cavalli Jan. 19, 2009

Jan. 19, 2009

Hi, As it was asked during our last conference call and after some exchange of ideas among the Travel Policy drafting team we agreed on the following appoach in relation with the travel fund distribution among constituencies for Mexico. The following table sumarizes the proposed distribution of funds for Mexico (Mexico meeting proposal) , taking in consideration what was used for Cairo. It also consideres the total amount of founded travellers per year (30), dividing it into the six constituencies (5 founded travellers per year) and and it gives an idea of the remaining founded travellers for Sidney. (I am attaching the table as a word document in case it does not show up well in your emails). If you agree with this distribution, the next steps is for constituencies to inform the Council the names of the proposed councilors to be founded, no later than January 20th, 2009. Best regards and have a nice weekend. Olga *Constituencies* *Cairo meeting* *founded travellers * *Mexico meeting Proposal* *Total per constituency* *including Mexico * *Total Available Per Year* *Remaining for Sydney* * * *2008* *2009* NCUC 2 2 4 5 1 ISPC 1 2 3 5 2 RyC 1 2 3 5 2 BC 3 1 4 5 1 RrC 1 2 3 5 2 IPC 1 2 3 5 2 *Total* *9* *11* *20* *30* *10*

5 4

Re: [council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02
by William Drake Jan. 17, 2009

Jan. 17, 2009

Hello, On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02 > > "that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At- > Large community and representatives of potential new "non- > commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for > the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial > Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its > supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of > individual Internet users" > [snip] > Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant > only to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus > there is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO > council in this process. I can certainly see the logic of his > view and accept it if it is the predominant view in the council. I > do, however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the > Board motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion. As Avri's note anticipated, this board resolution and the related discussions have been a source of a great concern within NCUC (and a distraction from substantive GNSO work). We would appreciate help understanding how the resolution was formulated (including the lack of mention of the NCUC proposal) and accepted, as well as the origins and thinking behind the consequent proposals for a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives, etc. In the meanwhile, below I am passing along two related items: a letter from NCUC chair Robin Gross to the counsel; and an email from Milton to Denise replying to her 15 January message on the development of stakeholder groups. Thanks for your consideration, Bill ---------------------- Dear GNSO Councilors: It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have competing and often conflicting interests. We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO. Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the Board. We have no objection in principle to working with At large members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also note that individual or organizational At Large members may also be commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the definition of our structure. The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite obviously, the right approach. Best, Robin Gross Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency --------- Begin forwarded message: > From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)SYR.EDU> > Date: January 16, 2009 11:39:54 PM GMT+01:00 > To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: [liaison6c] Development of Stakeholder Groups > Reply-To: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)SYR.EDU> > > Denise: > > It is good to see ICANN staff becoming more flexible about the > formation of the new Stakeholder Groups. > > However, you still are deviating rather significantly from the Board > Governance Committee’s reform principles. > > The spirit of the BGC reforms was to encourage consensus policy > making, balanced representation, and a move away from the gridlock > that has beset the GNSO for years. > > Unfortunately the staff’s approach to the reform process is having > the opposite effect: it is encouraging political infighting and > fragmentation rather than consensus. > > Right now the staff is actively encouraging the formation of new > constituencies. Your intent is probably to encourage new > participation, but in fact that is not happening. No new > organizations or participants have surfaced in this process: ALL of > the new constituency proponents are simply existing members of GNSO > constituencies or long time members of At Large RALOs. Creating new > constituencies IS NOT the same thing as bringing in new participants. > > The real effect of your actions is simply to set in motion a willy- > nilly fragmentation of stakeholder groups and a rather nasty kind of > political competition. Each of these constituencies is convinced > that if they break away from other groups and form their “own” > constituency they have more exclusive power and will be guaranteed > seats on the GNSO council. And since the number of seats on the > Council is fixed, the attempt to form new constituencies is a zero > sum game, in which one group’s recognition as a constituency > inherently diminishes the number of seats that can be held by other > constituencies. This creates an unhealthy, uncooperative > environment. It fosters a war of all against all. The Board will be > inundated with lobbying as these groups seek recognition for > themselves and heap criticism on other proposed constituencies as > being “unrepresentative” or “unfair.” > > Bertrand and other advocates of consensus-based multistakeholderism > would be shocked if they knew what was really happening. > > BGC members have repeatedly told me and other members of the GNSO > that the Stakeholders should develop and propose _their own_ > structures. Shockingly, the Board has approved (BR 12 December > 2008) without any debate or public comment on its implications, a > proposal to have the entire GNSO and At Large define the structure > of the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. This means that > commercial stakeholder groups and supplier groups will get to > dictate how our SG is organized. But no one has invited NCUC to > participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or > the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among > SGs is unacceptable. It exemplifies the political war that you are > creating. Such pressure and discrimination will only discourage > existing noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO. > > Contrary to your claim, your approach does increase layers of > bureaucracy. All of these constituencies will have their own > organizational structure, their own membership eligibility criteria, > their own email lists, etc., etc. With separate lists, no member of > one constituency will know what is going on in the other, unless > they join ,many new lists – the last thing we need. Then the leaders > of all these constituencies will have to engage in time-consuming, > highly political negotiations with the leaders of other > constituencies to allocate Council seats and agree on policies. This > two-layered structure is a disaster, it creates the kind of > overwhelming organizational overhead that kills participation by > newcomers. For newcomers to ICANN, the organizational complexity is > already daunting. You cannot expect to increase participation by > doing this. > > The only solution to these problems is to break out of the > constituency model altogether. > > NCUC has thought carefully about the problem of Stakeholder Group > structure and has prepared a proposal that solves these problems. > Although every Board member we have talked to has supported our > approach, certain members of the staff have greeted it with > hostility. We are puzzled by this. Nevertheless, we are convinced it > is the right approach and are willing to take our case to the Board, > to the GAC, and to the public. In any fair comparison, we have no > doubt about which proposal will look better to those people who > really want to make bottom up work. > > --Milton Mueller, member, Noncommercial Users Constituency > > > From: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org > ] On Behalf Of Denise Michel > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:39 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan > Greenberg; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La Chapelle > Cc: Staff GNSO Implementation Planning Team; Nick Ashton-Hart; Donna > Austin > Subject: [liaison6c] Development of Stakeholder Groups > > Dear Community Members: > > Staff would like to share another draft Stakeholder Group Petition/ > Charter Template (attached) to support and inform discussions on > this matter. This compliments the draft template provided in > October 2008. > > Recognizing that we are all operating in uncharted territory, our > collective thinking continues to evolve concerning Stakeholder > Groups and how they might be optimally constructed, especially in > the formative stages of the GNSO Improvements implementation. > After considering some initial ideas and models, we found ourselves > gravitating toward a less encumbered structure. The result is the > attached template that we are circulating to the GNSO and broader > community in hopes that it will be useful as discussions on forming > four Stakeholder Groups move forward. > > Underscoring our latest thinking is the following quotation from the > BGC Report on GNSO Improvements, adopted by the Board, which states > that (page 33), "The stakeholder groups may function only as a > 'caucus,' bringing together like-minded stakeholders to elect > representatives to the Council who can represent them. This > structure would be fluid enough to accommodate new constituencies or > the formation of new interest groups. It will be important for the > implementation team to consider how to implement this flexibility > within the overall stakeholder structure set forth in these > recommendations. Our goal is definitely not to create a new layer > of bureaucracy (emphasis added), as we heard concerns about at the > San Juan Meeting." > > This revised draft template emphasizes the constituency's continued > preeminence within the GNSO and, at the same time, establishes a > Stakeholder Group organization comprising minimal administrative and > operational essentials until such time as our experiences may > suggest a more elaborate design. In the bullets below, we have > annotated where our first draft template was changed along with > rationale where appropriate. > > This streamlined approach also may be easier to implement in the > June time frame (you'll recall that the Board needs to review and > approve SG plans before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in > June 2009). > > Staff stands ready to provide assistance and work with you in the > construction of the Stakeholder Group organizations and charters. > Please feel free to call upon us to discuss Stakeholder Group > creation or to help with other restructuring matters --policy-staff(a)icann.org > . > > Regards, > > > Denise Michel > ICANN Vice President > Policy Development > denise.michel(a)icann.org > +1.310.578.8632 > Notes on changes to Staff's first draft template > > 1) Section 2.0 -- Organization and Membership > > a. Replaced sub-sections 2.2 and 2.3. Consistent with the > current Bylaws, new constituency petitions are sent to the Board > (also copied to the GNSO Council and publicly posted for comment) > for formal approval including final placement within a particular > Stakeholder Group. Until the Bylaws are amended, we propose that > these functions be stipulated within the SG charter and re-evaluated > at a future date. > > b. Added sub-section 2.4 to differentiate and emphasize > constituency rights and responsibilities from those of the SG. > > 2) Section 3.0 -- Leadership > a. Consistent with the BGC guidance, we amended sub-section 3.1 > to add the option to structure an informal leadership caucus (e.g. > of Constituency Chairs) vs. formally elected officers. > > b. Original section 4.0 – Stakeholder Group Functions was > edited and absorbed into sub-section 3.3. The principal functions > of the SG remain substantially as they were originally conceived. > > c. Sub-sections 3.4 and 3.5 were edited for additional clarity > and 3.6 was removed on the basis that, to further reduce SG > administrative tasks, membership lists should continue to be > maintained by constituencies until such time as the GNSO has a > master database containing GNSO participants (as recommended in the > BGC Report). > > *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj ***********************************************************

2 1

Revised PPSC charter for Council review and action
by Liz Gasster Jan. 17, 2009

Jan. 17, 2009

All, The PPSC has developed and approved the following revised PPSC charter for the Council's review and action. Unlike the OSC, which changed the membership section of its charter by expanding the OSC to include the Chairs of the various work teams to be created, the PPSC proposes to require instead that the chairs of each work team be existing members of the PPSC. The PPSC also voted to approve changing the previous membership of "GNSO council chair and/or vice chair" to "GNSO council chair or vice chair" as did the OSC in its recent revision. Though the phraseology is a bit different, no other substantive changes were made. For reference, the charter as drafted in October is attached for easy comparison. The final version below can also be found on the PPSC workspace: https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?pdp_team Thanks, Liz PPSC Charter as approved by the PPSC - Proposed Charter for Policy Process Steering Committee ("PPSC") The PPSC is responsible for reviewing and recommending processes used within the GNSO for developing policy and recommending any changes. The immediate goal of the PPSC is to develop recommendations for all process changes needed to meet the requirements of the GNSO Improvements Report as approved by the Board. Once the first set of changes has been implemented, the charter may be expanded to include the responsibility for reviewing the functioning of the new processes and for recommending any further changes, should they be required. The PPSC also will have other duties as assigned by the GNSO Council. Future work might include establishing guidelines for the practice of drafting teams as used in the GNSO Council and other ad-hoc mechanisms that might be used by the Council, as well as establishing guidelines for the interactions between the volunteers of the GNSO and its Council and the ICANN policy staff. Working method for the PPSC The PPSC will establish a minimum of two separate teams, one tasked with developing a proposal for a new WG model (WG Team) and the other a new policy development process (PDP Team). The PPSC will serve as the coordinating body for these separate teams. The PPSC will be responsible for combining the results into a proposal to the Council that includes the guidelines for the working groups and the suggested bylaws changes for the PDP process. The PPSC also may consider whether any of the activities called for in the recommendations lend themselves to being addressed through the establishment of a special team. Membership in the PPSC The PPSC will be comprised of the following members: * GNSO council chair or vice chair * 1 representative from each constituency (need not be a Council member) * 1 Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Current Members: * BC: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (alternate) * IPC: J. Scott Evans (alternate Chair), Ute Decker (alternate) * ISPC: Greg Ruth, Tony Harris (alternate) * NCUC: Konstantinos Komaitis, Gabriel Piniero (alternate) * RyC: Jeff Neuman (Chair), Catherine Sigmar (alternate) * RC: Tim Ruiz, Tom Keller (alternate) * NCA: Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (alternate) * GNSO Council (v-)chair: Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes (alternate) Other Participants in the PPSC: * Liaison or an appointed representative/observer from ALAC: Alan Greenberg * Liaison or an appointed representative/observer from the GAC: Bertrand de la Chappelle ICANN Staff: * GNSO Secretariat * 1 ICANN policy staff representative: Liz Gasster Goals and Milestones for the PPSC * To be determined by the PPSC, in cooperation with its work teams, and approved by the Council Decision making for the PPSC * Unless otherwise determined by the PPSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process. * Work Team rules have been drafted and are being reviewed by the PPSC: PPSC work team rules draft revised 10 January.doc<https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi/PPSC%20work%20team%20rules%20draf…>

1 0

RE: [council] RAA amendment process
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 16, 2009

Jan. 16, 2009

Tony, The RrC participated in a way forward for over a year. The end result was the set of amendments that were just rejected by the Council. I don't see any incentive for registrars to get back into an overall discussion of the RAA. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA amendment process From: "Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com> Date: Tue, January 13, 2009 10:40 am To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)acm.org>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Avri As one of those who voted against the amendments you've articulated the reasons why perfectly. I couldn't agree more. As for the way forward, I wouldn't want to go back to zero even though there were too many vague areas before. At least that's now been recognised, although where we go from here isn't clear either. Answers to the questions you raise at the end should help us decide but I'd be interested to hear a view on the preferred way forward from the RrC. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 13 January 2009 16:06 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] RAA amendment process Hi, On 13 Jan 2009, at 08:39, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > I just which someone on > the Council could explain to me why we would not have been better off > approving the current RAA amendments as they are rather than delaying > them along with other possible future changes. I haven't heard > anything > yet that makes sense to me from a practical point of view. Are there > any of the proposed changes that would not be at least as good as > those > in the existing RAA? I understand other frustrations but in my > opinion > they don't justify delaying some improvements any further than we have > to. I too voted for the RAA amendment and to some extent have similar views - something was better then nothing. But,some very good reasons given by those who abstained or voted no. One important reason given was that they found the process flawed. Without agreeing that it necessarily was flawed, it is something that you and I probably should have realized much earlier - that without great advance work they possibly would at least appear flawed - and we all know what is said about appearances and reality. There is also another reason often given by people against accepting the incomplete and imperfect as at least some improvement, and that it that in the long run we will satisfy ourselves with the incomplete - there is often nothing so permanent as a temporay solution. And this can hold despite the fact that we had a follow-up motion indicating we should continue the work. This is one reason I have started sometimes putting the 'continue to work motions' before policy decision vote. Another reason some may have taken for voting against, was the very nature of the implementation. Again we all should have understood that this was an issue of amending contracts at renewal time and not a consensus policy within the picket fence, much earlier in the process. Though I am sure that some on the council did understand. As chair and v-chair together with the policy staff, we should have realized there was a gap or difference in understanding the implications of a contract amendment and should have brought it into the light earlier. At this point, the question does become: What do we, as a council, wish to do next about the RAA? Are we at the point where we need an issues report to try and take us back to ground 0. Can we put together a PDP that will recommend consensus policy changes where that is the legitimate course and that recommends contract changes in place outside the range of consensus policy. Can an issues report be written that makes these categories and which issues belong in which category clear to the council and community? Another thing we obviously need to know is the implication for the amendments given the council not having approved them by a supermajoriy. E.g. are some registrars likely to adopt them anyway? Can they do so if they wish - assuming the RrC believes they are good amendments? What recourse does the board have at this point? thanks a.

1 0

Follow up on new gTLDs call.
by Avri Doria Jan. 16, 2009

Jan. 16, 2009

Hi, First I would like to reiterate my thanks to the staff for the support on the call and to all the participants. As I mentioned at the end of the call, we still need to discuss whether there is a need for any further action from the council at this point in time. We have had a lot of opportunity to speak with the implementation team about our questions and have had today's meeting to discuss in detail any areas where there were possible variance between the implementation plan and the approved policy. We have also received extensive information on the thoughts and work that went into the plan as currently drafted and we received information on the upcoming process for producing the next version of the plan. As I understand it, the implementation team is currently hard at work on comment's analysis and on making revisions to the plan and will be publishing both an analysis document and the revised plan. I expect that they will be taking the issues from today's discussions into account in this process. Do council member believe there is any reason to produce a document on the possible variance issues? Or is it enough to wait for the next version of the plan to check and see how all of these issues have been handled and responded to? If there is significant sentiment for further action at this time, I hope there will also be some volunteers to do the drafting. thanks a.

4 3

Development of Stakeholder Groups
by Denise Michel Jan. 16, 2009

Jan. 16, 2009

Dear Community Members: Staff would like to share another draft Stakeholder Group Petition/Charter Template (attached) to support and inform discussions on this matter. This compliments the draft template provided in October 2008. Recognizing that we are all operating in uncharted territory, our collective thinking continues to evolve concerning Stakeholder Groups and how they might be optimally constructed, especially in the formative stages of the GNSO Improvements implementation. After considering some initial ideas and models, we found ourselves gravitating toward a less encumbered structure. The result is the attached template that we are circulating to the GNSO and broader community in hopes that it will be useful as discussions on forming four Stakeholder Groups move forward. Underscoring our latest thinking is the following quotation from the BGC Report on GNSO Improvements, adopted by the Board, which states that (page 33), "The stakeholder groups may function only as a 'caucus,' bringing together like-minded stakeholders to elect representatives to the Council who can represent them. This structure would be fluid enough to accommodate new constituencies or the formation of new interest groups. It will be important for the implementation team to consider how to implement this flexibility within the overall stakeholder structure set forth in these recommendations. *Our goal is definitely not to create a new layer of bureaucracy* *(emphasis added)*, as we heard concerns about at the San Juan Meeting." This revised draft template emphasizes the constituency's continued preeminence within the GNSO and, at the same time, establishes a Stakeholder Group organization comprising minimal administrative and operational essentials until such time as our experiences may suggest a more elaborate design. In the bullets below, we have annotated where our first draft template was changed along with rationale where appropriate. This streamlined approach also may be easier to implement in the June time frame (you'll recall that the Board needs to review and approve SG plans before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009). Staff stands ready to provide assistance and work with you in the construction of the Stakeholder Group organizations and charters. Please feel free to call upon us to discuss Stakeholder Group creation or to help with other restructuring matters -- policy-staff(a)icann.org. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.310.578.8632 Notes on changes to Staff's first draft template 1) *Section 2.0 -- Organization and Membership* a. Replaced sub-sections 2.2 and 2.3. Consistent with the current Bylaws, new constituency petitions are sent to the Board (also copied to the GNSO Council and publicly posted for comment) for formal approval including final placement within a particular Stakeholder Group. Until the Bylaws are amended, we propose that these functions be stipulated within the SG charter and re-evaluated at a future date. b. Added sub-section 2.4 to differentiate and emphasize constituency rights and responsibilities from those of the SG. *2)* *Section 3.0 -- Leadership* a. Consistent with the BGC guidance, we amended sub-section 3.1 to add the option to structure an informal leadership caucus (e.g. of Constituency Chairs) vs. formally elected officers. b. Original section 4.0 – Stakeholder Group Functions was edited and absorbed into sub-section 3.3. The principal functions of the SG remain substantially as they were originally conceived. c. Sub-sections 3.4 and 3.5 were edited for additional clarity and 3.6 was removed on the basis that, to further reduce SG administrative tasks, membership lists should continue to be maintained by constituencies until such time as the GNSO has a master database containing GNSO participants (as recommended in the BGC Report).

1 0

RE: [council] RAA amendment process
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 16, 2009

Jan. 16, 2009

I made an even stronger statement, that after listening to the Cairo briefing and a more recent ALAC briefing, it seems to me that the statements at that time were that GNSO approval was the short-cut around amendment-at-renewal. Specifically, this meeting was the first time that ICANN staff made reference to RAA section 5.4. Prior to that, the only person that had mentioned it (within my hearing) was Danny Younger, and the reply from staff seemed to be that this clause only applied to renewals (which we were not talking about). And I seem to remember both Tim Ruiz and Tim Cole both saying that we want to take quick action because of the issues raised by RegisterFly - perhaps I misunderstood. I think that before the GNSO can take any further action, we need a clear primer from ICANN services and legal staff on how various aspects of the RAA can be amended: - under what conditions/processes can the RAA be amended on renewal (specifically does ICANN have any rights to unilaterally make changes); - under what conditions can the RAA be amended on the fly (within picket fence, outside, what voting thresholds for the GNSO/Board). I am sure that there are other variants as well. We need clarity on the rules of the game before we can decide on one or more paths. Alan At 13/01/2009 12:03 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: >As for the amendment process, I did understand that it was not a >Capital-C "Consensus Policy" within the picket fence. I, however, >thought that the entire point of going through the 2/3 majority vote >process was to avoid the piecemeal amendment-upon-renewal process. I >haven't gone back to listen to the recording of our Thursday wrap up >session in Cairo, but that's the understanding I had after that >presentation by Kurt. > >K

3 2