January 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Public comments called for on Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Jan '09

13 Jan '09

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Dear All, You are encouraged to submit comments on the Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) from 9 to 30 January 2009. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jan09-en.htm Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) A public comment period opened on Friday 9 January 2009 for 21 days on an Initial Report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm The IRTP Part A PDP concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid 'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for 'partial bulk transfers' between registrars. A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. PLEASE NOTE: The Working Group will not make a final decision on which solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of the comments received during the public comment period and in the final constituency statements has taken place. Following its deliberations, the Working Group has made some preliminary conclusions for each issue, which it hopes will inspire further comments from the public as well as the constituencies. These preliminary conclusions are as follows: Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in which it is currently used to facilitate transfers. Some members suggested that finding a way to make the Registrant e-mail address more readily available could be addressed as part of an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS protocol. This could be through updates to the existing protocol, modification of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or adoption of the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol. However, after review and discussion none of these options received broad agreement. The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address, future IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would not change the current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to notify the registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before the process is completed. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic authentication. However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether these options should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be left to market solutions. Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is no need to incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars at this stage. The Working Group believes that these scenarios can be addressed either through the existing Bulk Transfer provisions, or through existing market solutions. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for further action. The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete Initial Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] before submitting comments. Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to irtp-initial-report(a)icann.org. Public comments received can be accessed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-initial-report/. The deadline for submission of comments is 30 January 2009. Related links: Part A Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] Existing Transfer Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm Thank you for your cooperation. kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ALAC contribution to WHOIS priority/feasibility assessment - update
by Liz Gasster 13 Jan '09

13 Jan '09

All, Today I participated on an ALAC call to give an overview of the WHOIS studies and to explain in further detail the GNSO Council request for input on study priorities and feasibility, as well as input on the "working definitions" of key study terms. The ALAC is very interested in contributing its viewpoint but is unable to do so this week as requested. They will be able to provide input by the end of January and asked me to convey this to the GNSO Council. Thanks, Liz

1 0

RE: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
by Tim Ruiz 13 Jan '09

13 Jan '09

Thanks for explanation Doug. Is there any particular reason why funded travelers have to make arrangements through ICANN Staff/Agents? Could the procedure simply allow X for airfare and X per diem for Lodging (possibly adjusted per meeting based on location) then allow the traveler to book their own airfare and accomodations and submit receipts for reimbursement? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City From: Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org> Date: Sun, January 11, 2009 12:53 pm To: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza <caffsouza(a)gmail.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Carlos and Council, Sorry. I thought the issue of budget allocation was discussed directly with the travel committee and understood, and as noted before, I'd be happy to discuss this with relevant counselors at any time. Short answer: we have not identified a way to allocate a budget to a Supporting Organization or Constituency. Let me explain. As I've discussed with several people, my personal view is that often the best decisions are made by the people closest to the work, so why not just allocate a budget? There is a balance point that makes this travel issue awkward since there is no clear chain of fiduciary responsibility (in the corporate sense) at the Supporting Organizations level. ICANN has a fiduciary responsibility to establish a process for controlled allocation of expenditures under business laws, particularly as a tax-exempt organization. There is no easy way to implement what appears "obvious" - just give organizations a budget to spend. Financial controls are required to remain consistent with taxation rules for businesses. Resource allocation in all instances should follow pre-defined controlled processes as a way to prove ICANN has control over the kinds of business ills - including financial mismanagement and worse - that we read about in the papers these days. That's why the community travel support approach is essentially a pre-approved expense reimbursement plan. I hope that provides some additional clarity behind the rationale, and would Still like to see how we can put more flexibility into travel support while maintaining appropriate controls this for next fiscal year. Perhaps a meeting with the travel committee, including ICANN's CFO Kevin Wilson who will be taking on this work on the staff side, and other interested councilors in Mexico City would be a good next step. Thanks, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649 On 1/9/09 4:48 AM, "Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is something that we have been discussing at NCUC. It would be nice to > have some input on the eventual refusal of resolution 2 and, most what is more > important, to let the council know the reasons why one system for allocating > funds for travel expenses was chosen and not the one indicated in the GNSO > motion. Such input would surely give us more information and grounds to > decide on how to best react to the travel support procedure. > > Thank you, > Carlos > > 2009/1/9 Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> >> Denise, >> further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a >> response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at >> our December 18 meeting? >> This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced. >> Many thanks. >> Philip >> ------------------- >> >> Whereas: >> Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO >> travel. >> >> 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative >> difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. >> >> 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum >> for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies >> currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should >> exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair >> travel. >> >> 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who >> receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for >> which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. >> >> The motion unanimously passed by voice vote >

2 1

Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at 16:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Jan '09

13 Jan '09

[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

2 1

FW: Community Travel support for Mexico City
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Jan '09

13 Jan '09

Forwarded From: Kevin Wilson ======================= GNSO Community members: I understand a question was raised on last week's Council call regarding per diem support in cases where ICANN hotel and airfare support are split between two individuals applying for ICANN travel support. In these cases, per diems are bundled with the hotel costs. If the hotel provides meals and in room Internet without additional charges, the per diem will be adjusted down for those items. Best regards, Kevin Wilson CFO ICANN Kevin.wilson(a)icann.org > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> > Date: Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:42 AM > Subject: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City > To: denise.michel(a)icann.org > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org, Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org> > > Denise, > > further to our Council discussion yesterday could you please elicit a response to resolution 2 of the Council motion on travel support passed at our December 18 meeting? > > This is Council's response re Mexico City and the deadlines you referenced. > > Many thanks. > > Philip > > ------------------- > > Whereas: > Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel. > > 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. > > 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. > > 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. > > The motion unanimously passed by voice vote > >

2 1

Revised:Final vote on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Jan '09

12 Jan '09

Dear Councillors, Please note the correction in Kristina Rosette's abstention statement. In the second sentence, the word 'fraud has been replaced by 'flawed'. Thank you and apologies for the confusion caused by the mistake. Glen The voting is closed on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion which was before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below. The final vote is as follows. The motion did not obtain a supermajority. 9 Votes Against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), William Drake, Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each) Due to a misunderstanding in the process and email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 hours after the ballot was scheduled to close. As the balloting had not been formally closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. 4 Abstentions: Philip Sheppard CBUC), Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) 14 Votes in favour: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes) Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) Reasons for abstaining ====================== Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about the sequential approach to the RAA changes. Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way the consultative process has been run, how the input of registrants and users has been largely ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. Kristina Rosette (IPC): Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 resolution, the RAA amendment consultative process essentially excluded registrants and users including brand owners, and ignored their input. In addition to that flawed consultative process, the Registrar constituency is now being granted weighted voting on whether the amendments should be approved. And finally, because the highly restricted, narrow and limited language resulting from that flawed consultative process will render the majority of the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. Terry Davis (NCA): I have not been part of this process long enough to take a position on this yet. I am still understanding all the issues associated. Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' vote. I believe we have an alternative as I suggested, and have not heard any reason not to do so. We could have a fast track working group to determine which of these proposed amendments truly have consensus of the Council. There has not been any consultative process with the Council to find out which amendments have full consensus and could be adopted immediately, and could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But at the moment we do not have clear consensus on this amendment package. Then there are a bunch of open issues that are not mentioned in the package at all and that we need assurance will be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote. ........................................................................................... Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments (documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Community Travel support Procedure for Mexico City
by Denise Michel 12 Jan '09

12 Jan '09

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM 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

5 6

Final vote on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Jan '09

12 Jan '09

Dear Councillors, The voting is closed on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion which was before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below. The final vote is as follows. The motion did not obtain a supermajority. 9 Votes Against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), William Drake, Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each) Due to a misunderstanding in the process and email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 hours after the ballot was scheduled to close. As the balloting had not been formally closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. 4 Abstentions: Philip Sheppard CBUC), Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) 14 Votes in favour: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes) Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) Reasons for abstaining ====================== Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about the sequential approach to the RAA changes. Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way the consultative process has been run, how the input of registrants and users has been largely ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. Kristina Rosette (IPC): Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 resolution, the RAA amendment consultative process essentially excluded registrants and users including brand owners, and ignored their input. In addition to that fraud consultative process, the Registrar constituency is now being granted weighted voting on whether the amendments should be approved. And finally, because the highly restricted, narrow and limited language resulting from that flawed consultative process will render the majority of the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. Terry Davis (NCA): I have not been part of this process long enough to take a position on this yet. I am still understanding all the issues associated. Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' vote. I believe we have an alternative as I suggested, and have not heard any reason not to do so. We could have a fast track working group to determine which of these proposed amendments truly have consensus of the Council. There has not been any consultative process with the Council to find out which amendments have full consensus and could be adopted immediately, and could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But at the moment we do not have clear consensus on this amendment package. Then there are a bunch of open issues that are not mentioned in the package at all and that we need assurance will be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote. ........................................................................................... Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments (documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 16 January 2009 at 16:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Jan '09

12 Jan '09

[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

Nomination Acceptance
by Gomes, Chuck 11 Jan '09

11 Jan '09

Sincere thanks to Olga for nominating me for Council vice chair and to Adrian for seconding the nomination. I accept the nomination. If I am elected, I commit to serving as vice chair to the best of my ability until the new vice chairs are seated under the new bicameral structure mid-year. I will continue to support Avri as Chair including backing her up when needed during meetings and cooperating with her and Glen in various Council activities as I have tried to do since first being elected vice chair. I will also do my best to fulfill vice chair functions in a neutral capacity, always trying to make clear when I am acting in my personal capacity or as a representative of the RyC and not acting as vice chair. Chuck Gomes

2 2