January 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [gnso-ppsc] Motion for PPSc charter
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

Borrowing heavily from the OSC motion, I make the following motion regarding the most recent version of the PPSC charter: Whereas: The GNSO Council reviewed and accepted the new GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan developed by the Planning Team at its 16 October meeting. That Plan called for the creation of a Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) to oversee efforts to revise and enhance the GNSO’s Policy Development Process. The PPSC was formed and held three teleconference meetings and conducted various online discussions as of 7 January 2009. The PPSC reviewed and modified the draft PPSC Charter prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team and recommends that the Council approve the revised draft Charter dated 7 January 2009 and contained at the committee’s wiki site at https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee…. Resolve: The GNSO Council approves the PPSC Charter and directs the PPSC to proceed in fulfilling the terms of that Charter. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-ppsc] Motion for PPSc charter From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Tue, January 20, 2009 2:39 pm To: PPSC <gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org> Hi, Just a reminder - we need a council member to make the motion for the charter as well as a council member to second it. thanks a.

1 0

RE: [council] Schedule for Mexico
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

Yes, I see it on the Wiki. Should have checked it first. No specific concerns, assuming Sat and Thu as our first and last days but would like to confirm. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Schedule for Mexico From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Tue, January 20, 2009 2:12 pm To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 13:07 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote: > Can we discuss the Council's schedule for Mexico during our meeting on > the 29th? > > Tim Hi, It is on the draft schedule. Are there any special concerns you have? thanks a.

1 0

Schedule for Mexico
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

Can we discuss the Council's schedule for Mexico during our meeting on the 29th? Tim

2 1

FW: [council] URGENT: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

I meant to send this to the Council list so that everyone is aware. Chuck ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:49 AM To: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: RE: [council] URGENT: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City The RyC has not identified any member representatives who would not be able to attend the Mexico City ICANN meetings if they did not receive travel funding, so we would like to roll over any funding allocated for the RyC to any applicable future in-person meetings (e.g., Sydney) that occur this fiscal year. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:14 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] URGENT: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City Dear Councillors, Reminder : 22 January 2009 is the deadline for the list of supported travelers to the Mexico meetings. (see below) To date the Registrar constituency, NCUC and Nominating committee appointees have sent in the names and completed the BCD travel form. The BCD travel form will be resent to all the constituencies which have not yet returned their information. Thank you for your urgent attention. Kind regards, Glen Forwarded From: Kevin Wilson Sent: jeudi 8 janvier 2009 21:06 Subject: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City Dear Supporting Organisation participants: The following information is provided to help you take advantage of the travel funding made available for the ICANN Mexico City meeting through the new Community Travel Support Procedure <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.…> (CTSP). Since travel arrangements for the Mexico City meeting need to be completed this month, your organisation may want to use a "temporary" process for providing a list of ICANN-funded travelers for this meeting. By 22 January 2009, staff needs a list of supported travelers - 13 names from the GNSO and 12 names from the ccNSO including the chair and NomCom appointees. (Please note the additional important deadlines for Mexico City travel are included below.) We look forward to receiving the final, proposed travel allocation procedure for your SO. Please email it to me and ICANN's travel coordinator at the following addresses: kevin.wilson(a)icann.org and travel-support(a)icann.org 1) Deadlines for ICANN-funded travel to the Mexico City meeting. To ensure all available travel funds can be used for the ICANN Mexico City meeting, which starts 2 November, the following schedule will apply: 22 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for each Supporting Organisation Chair to provide ICANN Staff - travel-support(a)icann.org - with the list of travelers who are to receive travel support under the CTSP. If your SO has named you as a recipient of support for Mexico City, you will be contacted by ICANN Travel Coordination Staff with complete information on how your arrangements will be made. 28 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for room bookings. All travelers' arrival and departure dates need to be finalized by this date because this is the date by which all hotel room reservations must be contracted for or released. After this date, any additional cost for changes to travelers' arrival and departure details will be paid by the traveler, unless otherwise agreed to in advance, in writing, by ICANN Travel Staff. 28 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for flight bookings. Any approved traveler who has not completed their flight on or before this time will no longer be eligible for sponsored air travel. 2) Important change In response to community requests for this meeting air fare and hotel support can now be split between two designated travelers (1 person would receive only hotel support and another person would receive only air fare support, and this would be counted as 1 funded traveler for the purposes of an SO's allocation. 3) Requirements for ICANN-funded travelers for the Mexico City include the following: The names of all ICANN-supported travelers will be publicly posted on the ICANN community travel webpage (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/) along with the class of travel supported, and the amount of travel funding received. For newly supported travelers (excluding Chair and NomCom-appointees) people who receive travel support will be asked to complete a meeting attendance form which will be publicly posted, and also will be required to attend all relevant, scheduled SO-related meetings in Mexico City (as identified by your SO). Each SO is encouraged to provide guidance on the general content requirements for travelers' reports. Per diem payments to funded travelers will be issued after their reports are received and attendance records verified. This is in response to the community requests to ensure transparency, accountability and efficacy for ICANN travel funding, and also is consistent with the approach used for ICANN's fellowship program participants. 4) Individuals who are not members of an SO Council can be selected to receive travel support. As stated, the goal of the CTSP is "to lower the barrier to participation, broaden the group of participants and, advance the work" of I CANN. SO's are asked to provide a list of individuals to receive travel funding "based on best meeting the policy-making needs of the entity." Any SO member is eligible to receive travel funding. The GNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 13 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding, and the ccNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 12 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding. Although these numbers were based on the total number of Council members from each SO, travel funding is not restricted to Council members. 5) SO's should consider factoring "need" into selection of travelers. This is one element which SOs may wish to consider when determining who should receive travel support. This supports ICANN's goal of lowering the barrier to participation. 6) If an SO does not use all of its available travel slots for a given meeting, they can be 'rolled over' to a subsequent meeting. This applies until the end of each ICANN fiscal year, after which point the unused support is 'lost' and the new fiscal year - and a potentially revised CTSP applies. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further information. Kevin Wilson

1 0

URGENT: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

Dear Councillors, Reminder : 22 January 2009 is the deadline for the list of supported travelers to the Mexico meetings. (see below) To date the Registrar constituency, NCUC and Nominating committee appointees have sent in the names and completed the BCD travel form. The BCD travel form will be resent to all the constituencies which have not yet returned their information. Thank you for your urgent attention. Kind regards, Glen Forwarded From: Kevin Wilson Sent: jeudi 8 janvier 2009 21:06 Subject: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City Dear Supporting Organisation participants: The following information is provided to help you take advantage of the travel funding made available for the ICANN Mexico City meeting through the new Community Travel Support Procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.…> (CTSP). Since travel arrangements for the Mexico City meeting need to be completed this month, your organisation may want to use a "temporary" process for providing a list of ICANN-funded travelers for this meeting. By 22 January 2009, staff needs a list of supported travelers - 13 names from the GNSO and 12 names from the ccNSO including the chair and NomCom appointees. (Please note the additional important deadlines for Mexico City travel are included below.) We look forward to receiving the final, proposed travel allocation procedure for your SO. Please email it to me and ICANN's travel coordinator at the following addresses: kevin.wilson(a)icann.org<mailto:kevin.wilson@icann.org> and travel-support(a)icann.org<mailto:travel-support@icann.org> 1) Deadlines for ICANN-funded travel to the Mexico City meeting. To ensure all available travel funds can be used for the ICANN Mexico City meeting, which starts 2 November, the following schedule will apply: 22 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for each Supporting Organisation Chair to provide ICANN Staff - travel-support(a)icann.org<mailto:travel-support@icann.org> - with the list of travelers who are to receive travel support under the CTSP. If your SO has named you as a recipient of support for Mexico City, you will be contacted by ICANN Travel Coordination Staff with complete information on how your arrangements will be made. 28 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for room bookings. All travelers' arrival and departure dates need to be finalized by this date because this is the date by which all hotel room reservations must be contracted for or released. After this date, any additional cost for changes to travelers' arrival and departure details will be paid by the traveler, unless otherwise agreed to in advance, in writing, by ICANN Travel Staff. 28 January (14:00 PDT) - deadline for flight bookings. Any approved traveler who has not completed their flight on or before this time will no longer be eligible for sponsored air travel. 2) Important change In response to community requests for this meeting air fare and hotel support can now be split between two designated travelers (1 person would receive only hotel support and another person would receive only air fare support, and this would be counted as 1 funded traveler for the purposes of an SO's allocation. 3) Requirements for ICANN-funded travelers for the Mexico City include the following: The names of all ICANN-supported travelers will be publicly posted on the ICANN community travel webpage (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/) along with the class of travel supported, and the amount of travel funding received. For newly supported travelers (excluding Chair and NomCom-appointees) people who receive travel support will be asked to complete a meeting attendance form which will be publicly posted, and also will be required to attend all relevant, scheduled SO-related meetings in Mexico City (as identified by your SO). Each SO is encouraged to provide guidance on the general content requirements for travelers' reports. Per diem payments to funded travelers will be issued after their reports are received and attendance records verified. This is in response to the community requests to ensure transparency, accountability and efficacy for ICANN travel funding, and also is consistent with the approach used for ICANN's fellowship program participants. 4) Individuals who are not members of an SO Council can be selected to receive travel support. As stated, the goal of the CTSP is "to lower the barrier to participation, broaden the group of participants and, advance the work" of I CANN. SO's are asked to provide a list of individuals to receive travel funding "based on best meeting the policy-making needs of the entity." Any SO member is eligible to receive travel funding. The GNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 13 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding, and the ccNSO has been asked to provide ICANN Staff with the names of 12 individuals (including chair and NomCom appointees) to receive travel funding. Although these numbers were based on the total number of Council members from each SO, travel funding is not restricted to Council members. 5) SO's should consider factoring "need" into selection of travelers. This is one element which SOs may wish to consider when determining who should receive travel support. This supports ICANN's goal of lowering the barrier to participation. 6) If an SO does not use all of its available travel slots for a given meeting, they can be 'rolled over' to a subsequent meeting. This applies until the end of each ICANN fiscal year, after which point the unused support is 'lost' and the new fiscal year - and a potentially revised CTSP applies. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further information. Kevin Wilson

1 0

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

New gTLD Council discussion MP3 15 January 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 15, 2009

Jan. 15, 2009

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Council discussion on new gTLDS at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-newgtlds-20090115.mp3 posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan Participants present on the call Council ======== Avri Doria - GNSO Council chair Chuck Gomes - Registries GNSO Council vice chair Edmon Chung - Registries Jordi Iparraguirre - Registries Kristina Rosette - IPC Ute Decker - IPC Stéphane van Gelder - Registrar Olga Cavalli - NCA Zahid Jamil - CBUC Tony Holmes - ISP Tony Harris - ISP Greg Ruth - ISP Mary Wong - NCUC William Drake - NCUC Carlos Souza - NCUC Terry Davis - NCA Olga Cavalli - NCA Alan Greenberg - ALAC liaison Pierre Bonis - ccNSO observer Absent apologies Adrian Kinderis Tim Ruiz Observers ========== Ken Stubbs - Ry Vanda Scartizini - ALAC Nick Wood - IPC Danny Younger Heike Jensen - ALS Terre des Femmes Michael Palage Ronald N. Andruff - RNA Partners, Inc. CBUC Steve Delbianco - CBUC Cheryl Langdon Orr - ALAC Chair Mike O'Connor - CBUC Jeff Neuman - Ryc Neustar Dirk Krischenowski - dotBerlin Caroline Greer - dotMobi J. Scott Evans - IPC Sébastien Bachollet - ALAC Paul Diaz - Registrar Jose Arce Carlos Aguirre Staff ====== Denise Michel Kurt Pritz John Jeffrey Dan Halloran Olof Nordling Patrick Jones Marika Konings Craig Schwartz Liz Gasster Karen Lentz Karla Valente Glen de Saint Gery Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Council discussion on new gTLDs
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 15, 2009

Jan. 15, 2009

I think it would be helpful for the questions or issues raised to be identified before we delve into the substance (e.g. Some comments raised questions of whether X is consistent with Principle G). -----Original Message----- From: owner-ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:31 PM To: ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: Council discussion on new gTLDs Dear Councillors, Please find the draft agenda for the Council discussion on new gTLDs, tomorrow, 15 January 2009 at 16:00 UTC. Please see below for the dial-in information. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_15_jan_2009 Agenda 15 Jan 2009 Draft Agenda Record attendance Review agenda Review guideline for the meeting Guidelines for the meeting keep to the topic under discussion no need to repeat questions/issues someone else made not a time to bring up new objections to the implementation plan, only to understand issues as they relate to the principles/recommendations and implementation guidelines we are not here to discuss the value of the initial recommendation. i.e. that is off topic. we will see were we get by the end of 2 hours and figure out what to do next. Topics 1 - Discuss areas at variance with GNSO policy principles, recommendations and guidelines. Possible areas include, i.a.: Principle G: Do the review criteria infringe on freedom of expression Recommendation 1: Are the price levels discriminatory? Recommendation 2: Extent of confusing similarity Recommendation 5: Reserved names issues geographic identifiers 2 char IDN Recommendation 17: what is the clear compliance and sanctions process? IG B: Recommended cost based fees with different applicants paying different fees. Are these fees really cost based? Are some applicants subsidizing other applicants? IG F: Board resolution process was recommended instead of Auction IG O: Are there any plans for a fee reduction schedule for gTLS applicants from economies classified as least developed? Others? 2 - Discuss the motions we passed vis a vis new gTLDs for Staff Clarification purposes introduction of IDN TLDs Implementation guideline (IG) E 3 - Staff Overview on the comments received 4 - Discuss follow-up process to this meeting Are further comments necessary or has this meeting been sufficient? If we need a Design Team to create a comments paper - Who will do it? when would it need to be avaialble to be useful? or should it wait until after the next revision if the problems still exist. .............................................................................................. Dial-in details: PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: GTLD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0494 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4862 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7733 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5243 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1386 1-800-880-485 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-89-654 0800-999-636 BELGIUM 32-2-402-2432 0800-4-8360 BRAZIL 0800-8912038 CHILE 1230-020-0281 CHINA* 86-400-810-4760 10800-712-1193 10800-120-1193 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156463 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-15 800-700-167 DENMARK 45-7014-0238 8088-6075 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-00-04 080-511-1431 GERMANY 49-69-2222-52104 0800-216-1601 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0639 00800-12-5999 HONG KONG 852-2286-5632 800-964-136 HUNGARY 06-800-15227 INDIA 000-800-852-1216 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3500 IRELAND 353-1-246-0036 1800-931-782 ISRAEL 1-80-9303048 ITALY 39-02-3600-0326 800-906-585 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4763 00531-12-1149 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5154 00531-12-1149 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1314 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8121 MEXICO 001-866-627-0541 NETHERLANDS 31-20-710-9321 0800-023-4655 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4641 0800-443-793 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-14 800-11982 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072119 POLAND 00-800-1210067 PORTUGAL 8008-12179 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9613011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9197 800-120-4057 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-15 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93390 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1052 00798-14800-6323 SPAIN 34-91-414-15-44 800-099-279 SWEDEN 46-8-566-10-782 0200-887-612 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-7718 0800-000-038 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7346 00801-137-565 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65091 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9015 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3215 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2115 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7019-0812 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1415 0800-018-0795 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3439 USA 1-210-795-0472 877-818-6787 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3205 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Response to GNSO Council resolution on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report
by Marika Konings Jan. 15, 2009

Jan. 15, 2009

Dear All, Please find below ICANN staff's response to the questions outlined in the motion that was adopted by the GNSO Council on 18 December 2008 on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues report (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions) With best regards, Marika ===================== ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification no later than 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report: 1. In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding "how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP", the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, "On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, 'IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements'." * Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C? As the issue of whether or not to allow the transfer of a domain name in RGP directly relates to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, ICANN staff deems it appropriate for the GNSO Council to consider whether this issue can be included in one of the upcoming PDPs in this area. As noted by the Technical Steering Group (http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm) that developed an RGP implementation proposal, 'allowing registrants to choose the redeeming registrar will introduce numerous technical and operational complications into the system', which staff thinks might be best dealt with in the context of the inter-registrar transfer policy. From the upcoming IRTP PDPs, PDP C (operational rule enhancements) seems to be best suited to potentially deal with this issue. The issue of whether or not to allow the transfer of a domain name in RGP could also be considered as part of an overall PDP dealing with other post-expiration domain name recovery issues. However, in consideration of the above, ICANN staff recommends that the GNSO Council consider the issue in one of the already foreseen IRTP PDPs, most logically IRTP PDP C. * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? The GNSO Council would need to adopt a motion stating that it would like to see this issue addressed in one of the upcoming IRTP PDPs. Following the adoption of this motion, the charter for the IRTP PDP that deals with this issue would contain text to reflect this decision to add this specific issue to that PDP. * What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C? This issue would be included in the Charter for the relevant Working Group, when drafted. 2. In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends ". . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . ." * How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP? Compliance efforts in combination with information and educational activities might be considered in this context. It should be noted that such actions would not necessarily require Council action. For example, ICANN's compliance department currently organizes educational workshops in conjunction with ICANN meetings at which information provision requirements incorporated in the RAA relevant to this topic could be included as a topic of discussion. Furthermore the Compliance team is currently conducting an audit as part of its 2009 audit schedule regarding the registrar requirement to have deletion and renewal policies clearly displayed on registrar websites. In addition, a workshop with interested parties such as the ALAC and registrars could be considered to discuss potential enhancements and/or educational initiatives. Another avenue to be explored, as noted by a previous Chair of the GNSO Council could be that 'perhaps ICANN and the GNSO can assist with providing authoritative information on the policies and processes of domain name registration to these [consumer protection] organisations'. * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? As noted above, the activities described do not necessarily require Council action. ICANN's Compliance team has already commenced some of above referenced work and further discussions are being held internally to determine the best way to conduct educational sessions relevant to registrar requirements concerning deletion and renewal policies. 3. Section 3.7.5 of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier)." * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? Yes, this requirement is consistently enforced. The ICANN Compliance Department investigates all complaints that are received with regard to the non-cancellation of the registration if the Registered Name Holder or someone acting on behalf of the Registered Name Holder does not renew the registration. It should be noted that there have been complaints that turned out to be unfounded, as many registration agreements contain provisions in which the Registered Name Holder consents to someone acting on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to renew the registration, an issue that has also been outlined in the Issues Report in further detail. * Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal? If not, why not? The above statement is not completely correct. Registrars are required to delete a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in the RAA, if a Registered Name Holder or someone acting on behalf of the Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal. In this context it might be worth pointing to an advisory that ICANN published in 2004 to make the community aware of modifications that many registrars have made in registration agreements that result in the registrar obtaining the consent of the registrant to auction and/or transfer a domain name registration to a third party if the Registered Name Holder does not renew his/her registration. See http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21sep04-1.htm for further details. 4. Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, "In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement." * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? Yes, this requirement is being enforced. However as noted before, this only applies if the registration is not renewed by the Registered Name Holder or someone acting on behalf of the Registered Name Holder. * Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement? If not, why not? In the case of termination of a registration agreement, the respective registration agreement would need to be analyzed in order to determine which conditions apply. The Expired Domain Deletion Policy only applies to expired domain names.

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

Hi, I participated yesterday in the ccNSO monthly call. These are the relevant issues that may be or GNSO interest: - Items for the Agenda in Mexico: There will be a session with Registy - Registrars There could be a Joint GNSO ccNSO session but it was not decided yet (No date and time were specified for these sessions) - Mike Silber was confirmed as ccNSO appointee to ICANN Board Seat Nr 12 - Under AOB there was a comment about GNSO and ccNSO implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009. ccNSO will propose a draft resolution in relation with this subject and will discuss it among their memeber´s list. - Full agenda of the conference call can be found at: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/agenda-council-13jan08.pdf - MP3 recording of the call can be found at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/calendar/ Best regards Olga

1 0

Re: [council] Draft Agenda for New gTLD meeting 15 Jan
by Avri Doria Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

3 2

First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02
by Avri Doria Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

Hi, As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something about this. 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" The following is an idea that has been discussed between the chair of ALAC and myself and vetted a little with relevant staff. I understand she has taken the proposal to the ALAC (I thought we were going to talk about it some more first, but never mind) and I am now bringing it to the council. Given the pressure of time, we could use a model similar to the one developed by the board to force the GNSO constituencies to action on restructuring. I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend 30 days coming up with a suggestion. Number of people: From the GNSO we could have at Option a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7 Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5 (given were we are heading with the restructuring it might be interesting to try that model. note this is not council members but constituency/SG members) From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5 If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the other 2. We should add a GAC observer as well. And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate. He handled the last such effort very well. As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for communicating with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs and for coming to consensus. The recommendation would then be subject to public review and then subject to approval by both the GNSO Council and ALAC using their own methods This would take longer then board motion requested, but we could at least give them a plan and a schedule. I figure it would take minimum 8 weeks from Time 0. If we act quickly, we could be ready for open discussions in Mexico City, with the comment period ending a week after that meeting. Allowing for a decsions shortly thereafter. Thoughts? 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. a.

3 2

More on your travel comments/questions
by Doug Brent Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

GNSO Council, Two more questions (some echoed by multiple people) have come up on the travel support thread that I'd like to address: 1) Couldn't we just amend the approach and provide financial support for all counselors to travel to the Mexico City meeting, both providing more actual support, and avoiding some of the implementation issues with the current process? It is certainly true that the amount of money budgeted for travel support when compared to the ICANN budget is not large, and even if an amended approach would be applied to ccNSO and ASO (all subjects of this travel support procedure), the total budget impact would not be significant. However, it is important to recognize that the initial travel support recommendation came from balancing input of many, some saying all should be supported, and some saying no incremental travel support should be provided, and others commenting that additional stakeholders should be supported (e.g. the GAC). As with all budget expenditures, it is not only the amount but the prior agreement to spend the money that is important. Clearly, this will be reviewed along with the entire travel approach for next year, beginning with a workshop in Mexico City. 2) Why require an ICANN travel agent? There are several reasons for this: - Ensures that there is a consistent application of travel guidelines across all participants (equitable treatment); avoids staff oversight of the appropriateness of particular fares people might obtain (something no one wants). - Requires no cash outlay or expense tracking by those who are traveling - Increases ICANN's buying power (we recently got some discounts from United for example), inuring back to community benefit. - Provides for consolidated reporting of travel booked and actually taken There have been cases where ICANN booking was just not practical (for example, with tickets purchased in Cambodia). So, when impractical, staff has supported the use of outside agents. I track the GNSO email list, and know some of you personally. It is very clear that the GNSO councilors work very hard, and make a significant contribution to the ICANN community and the Internet community as a whole. In some sense, it would be easiest from a staff perspective to "just say yes" to comments made on the list (though there is the possibility of generating further debate from others currently quiet on the subject). Particularly with regards to these kind of issues, I think that you all expect and demand ICANN staff to ensure as much as possible that budgets (and the strategic decisions behind them) are followed, and that expenditures are being carefully managed and being made transparent. Again, email only goes so far in these kind of discussions, and I'd be happy to join a call with the travel committee or the entire council if that would help. Also, we will be scheduling a public session at the ICANN Mexico City meeting to receive input on and discuss the travel guidelines and their implementation, and get your thoughts about any changes that might be needed for the next fiscal year. Should you have questions about the implementation of the travel guidelines for Mexico City, please contact Kevin Wilson, who as I've noted earlier, will be involved in getting this feedback, and with your input, evolving the procedure for FY10. Best, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at16:00UTC
by Adrian Kinderis Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

Yes Mike I note 3 in my quick review... most others at 11am for the West Coasters. Sorry for my gross overstatement. ;) I retract my comment. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2009 1:45 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] RE: Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at16:00UTC We had Council calls at 5a.m. All last year, Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:36:15 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at 16:00UTC 3am Melbourne time. Terrific. Glad I filled out that Doodle. I know I know... stop complaining. Remind me again when the North Americans has a call any time from 10pm to 6am? Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2009 4:46 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at 16:00UTC [To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, As agreed upon during the Council meeting, a new gTLD Council discussion is scheduled for Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 16:00 UTC. The call will be open to observers and alternates if Council members cannot attend. Please RSVP to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org so that we can make sure there will be enough lines. The call will be recorded and transcribed and posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 14:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+1DST 21:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 03:00 (Friday 16 January.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Dial-in details: PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: GTLD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0494 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4862 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7733 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5243 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1386 1-800-880-485 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-89-654 0800-999-636 BELGIUM 32-2-402-2432 0800-4-8360 BRAZIL 0800-8912038 CHILE 1230-020-0281 CHINA* 86-400-810-4760 10800-712-1193 10800-120-1193 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156463 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-15 800-700-167 DENMARK 45-7014-0238 8088-6075 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-00-04 080-511-1431 GERMANY 49-69-2222-52104 0800-216-1601 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0639 00800-12-5999 HONG KONG 852-2286-5632 800-964-136 HUNGARY 06-800-15227 INDIA 000-800-852-1216 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3500 IRELAND 353-1-246-0036 1800-931-782 ISRAEL 1-80-9303048 ITALY 39-02-3600-0326 800-906-585 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4763 00531-12-1149 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5154 00531-12-1149 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1314 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8121 MEXICO 001-866-627-0541 NETHERLANDS 31-20-710-9321 0800-023-4655 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4641 0800-443-793 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-14 800-11982 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072119 POLAND 00-800-1210067 PORTUGAL 8008-12179 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9613011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9197 800-120-4057 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-15 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93390 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1052 00798-14800-6323 SPAIN 34-91-414-15-44 800-099-279 SWEDEN 46-8-566-10-782 0200-887-612 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-7718 0800-000-038 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7346 00801-137-565 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65091 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9015 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3215 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2115 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7019-0812 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1415 0800-018-0795 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3439 USA 1-210-795-0472 877-818-6787 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3205 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Agenda for New gTLD meeting 16 Jan
by Avri Doria Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

Hi Based on what I have heard spoken of so far, the following is a draft agenda for the New gTLD meeting on 15 January. 1 - Discuss areas at variance with GNSO policy principles, recommendations and guidelines. Possible areas include, i.a.: - Principle G: Do the review criteria infringe on freedom of expression - Recommendation 1: Are the price levels discriminatory? - Recommendation 2: Extent of confusing similarity - Recommendation 5: Reserved names issues - geographic - 2 char IDN - Recommendation 17: what is the clear compliance and sanctions process? - IG B: Recommended cost based fees with different applicants paying different fees. Are these fees really cost based? Are some applicants subsidizing other applicants? - IG F: Board resolution process was recommended instead of Auction - IG O: Are there any plans for a fee reduction schedule for gTLS applicants from economies classified as least developed? - Others? 2 - Discuss the motions we passed vis a vis new gTLDs - introducion of idn tlds - Implementation guideline (IG) E 3 - Discuss the comments received 4 - Discuss follow-up process to this meeting

5 6

RAA amendment process
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

I have put off raising this issue until I had a chance to re-listen to the last Council meeting MP3, which I have now done. I have to admit that I was quite astounded when we were told that if the GNSO approved, this set of amendments would take effect over a five year period as contracts were renewed (with a possibility that some registrars could volunteer to amend their contract prior to expiration). The rationale given was that this is because the form of the contract was being changed, and that some of the new terms were outside of those eligible for consensus policy (that is, outside of the proverbial picket fence). I was one of the people who previously questioned how this new package could be considered a "consensus policy" since some terms were arguably outside of the eligible areas, so the rationale does make some sense. However, I find it hard to accept that this was the first time that this has been mentioned (in any of the three briefings that I have attended). In fact, during previous discussions, the ALTERNATIVE to approving this amendment package was to either renegotiate with registrars one-by-one (those who were amenable, that is), or to implement the changes as contracts expired. Since those options were clearly less desirable, the GNSO route was being pursued. Am I the only one who feels that the ground-rules were changed at the last moment? Alan

6 6