October 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3
by Margie Milam Oct. 25, 2009

Oct. 25, 2009

Dear All, As we discussed yesterday, attached is a document that summarizes the key differences between the IRT and the Applicant Guidebook Version 3. This matrix seeks to succinctly present areas of contrast and briefly explain the rationale for the differences. Please review this draft and let me know whether there is any other information that should be included to facilitate the GNSO's work on the Board request. Best regards, Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

1 0

End of the Shadow Council
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Dear Colleagues, I write again regarding the so-called "Observers" at face-to-face GNSO Council meetings. Of course, I fully support that our face-to-face meetings are generally always open to true observers, both those present and located remotely. And I fully support that all of our meetings are generally fully recorded and transcribed. Indeed I think they should be translated, and that our conference calls be opened in real time to the public, with non-speaking access. I fully support that our email list is open and archived. All of this allows the public to see how the Council operates in practically real-time, and to experience the information and debate first-hand. Council must have flexibility to close its sessions and/or communicate privately, when it deems necessary for any stated and agreed reason. But I believe that has never happened to date, and of course the default must be open meetings and open communications. However, the growing trend is for GNSO "Observers" to participate in the Council's weekend face-to-face meetings on equal footing with Councilors, Liasons and Staff. A small and growing group of privileged observers, none of whom are elected or appointed to represent anyone but themselves and/or their specific organizations, are increasingly taking an inordinate amount of Council and Staff time. In effect, they are a "Shadow Council" that follows the Council from meeting to meeting, taking advantage of a privilege they ought not have. This must stop, effective immediately. It is not scalable as the community of interested observers grows and diversifies. It is not fair in any way: n Not fair to Councilors and Liasons who offer great personal sacrifice to travel long distances away from their lives, volunteering an overly full weekend in advance of a lengthy five-day meeting. n Not fair to the constituents who elected or appointed the Councilors and Liasons, expecting that they (and only they) would serve as those constituents' representatives on Council. n Not fair to the general public whose only opportunities for input to Council are via the Constituencies, Working Groups or public comment periods. Particularly not fair to the general public that does not speak English, or who cannot attend the sessions, as they have no equal ability to participate vis a vis the "Shadow Council". n Not fair to the Staff nor the Council as a whole, whose only opportunity to communicate face-to-face is during these meetings. The GNSO Council is a representative body. The representative Councilors and designated Liaisons must be allowed to do their jobs, which absolutely requires face-to-face interaction with Staff and with each other -- without constant 'clarifying questions', 'points of order', comments or questions from the public. To my knowledge, no other SO, nor the GAC nor the Board - nor any other council, committee or board anywhere in the world -- ever allow such privilege to observers. Such points should be raised through Council representatives, or during any or all of the many opportunities for public comment into the Council processes. Indeed this is the reason-for-being of the Constituencies themselves, of Working Groups, of public comment periods in general, and of the public comment periods allowed at the Council's face-to-face meetings (which can also be used in our weekend sessions, if time allows). Therefore, beginning with the newTLD session today, I request that observers be disallowed equal access to the Council table and microphones, just as they are disallowed such access at our larger public meetings and in our conference calls. The material presented by Staff in the session today will doubtless be repeated during a public session later in the week, which is a perfect opportunity for anyone to ask their questions or make their points directly to the Staff, without wasting tremendously valuable and scarce face-to-face Council/Staff time. As we have seen, too many people are abusing the privilege of open access to raise points that they then raise again and again at every opportunity throughout the ICANN meeting, and/or to communicate their particular, non-representative interests. They are abusing a privilege that they should not have in the first place, because it is not fair. Does anyone have an argument as to why the current privilege should be allowed to continue? Is anyone aware of any other council, board or committee, anywhere in the world, that allows such a privilege to observers? Otherwise, I hope the privilege will be discontinued immediately, and request Avri to confirm via reply to this list. If not, my next effort to stop this will be an Ombudsman complaint, on behalf of the entire community, so that this practice is investigated by a neutral party and discussed formally at the Council and/or Board level(s). I also request that the relevant OSC team discuss this and recommend appropriate provisions in our Council Rules of Procedure to ensure that nobody is given undue and disruptive access to Council, Liaisons and Staff during our meetings. Each and every member of the community - other than the "Shadow Councilors" and their specific organizations -- suffer from the continuation of this unwarranted and unseemly privilege that offered to just a few, at the expense of the many. Sincerely, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

3 4

ISPCP representatives on the GNSO
by Tony Holmes Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

I think most people are already aware that the result of the ISPCP election for seats on the GNSO Council resulted in a close run contest with Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Mark McFadden being appointed. Since then Mark McFadden has announced that he will no longer be working for an ISP as he'll now be employed by IANA and has subsequently stood down. Against that background a proposal to appoint the candidate who was runner up in the election, Jaime Wagner, by affirmation will be put forward at the ISPCP meeting in Seoul. On that basis may I propose that Jaime should be included in all the GNSO activities, including the GNSO dinner with the Board, that will occur in advance of the ISPCP meeting on Tuesday. I'll confirm the results of the ISPCP affirmation after the meeting on Tuesday. Tony Holmes Chair ISPCP

1 0

RE: New Registry Services Proposal posted
by Patrick Jones Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Dear Council members, ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on a request from VeriSign for DNSSEC in COM & NET: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009011. Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry services proposal to registryservice(a)icann.org, this is not notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry Services Evaluation Process can be found at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Regards, Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 patrick.jones(a)icann.org patrickjones.tel

1 0

Fwd: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] IDN PDP WG 1 Topic Paper available for public comments
by Avri Doria Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

Begin forwarded message: > From: Kristina Nordstrom <kristina.nordstrom(a)icann.org> > Date: 21 October 2009 04:20:59 EDT > To: "ccnso-idnpdpwg1(a)icann.org" <ccnso-idnpdpwg1(a)icann.org>, "ccnso-council(a)icann.org > " <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>, "cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > > > Subject: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] IDN PDP WG 1 Topic Paper available for > public comments > > Dear all, > > The initial IDN PDP WG 1 Topic Paper is now available at http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20oct09.htm > for public comments. > > Kind regards, > Kristina

2 1

REMINDER: GNSO Chair nominations - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate - closed
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Dear Councillors, Reminder: Part 2 - each House determines a Candidate. http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-12oct09.htm This process is closed, Wednesday, 21 October at 23:00 UTC and the result should be announced and sent to the council mailing list and <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> by Wednesday 21 October 2009 at 23:00 UTC. After council wide nominations are closed, each house will be allowed to select one candidate for GNSO Council Chair from the pool of nominees. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of the house selecting the candidate. Should the non voting NCA be elected as chair he/she would be a non-voting chair. Each house must announce their chosen candidate by 21 October 2009 at 23 UTC. The two houses may, separately, select the same candidate from the nominee pool if they so wish. The candidates from each of the houses shall have the opportunity of meeting with Council Members at the GNSO Working Group sessions in Seoul on Saturday morning, 24 October 2009. (Proposed agenda: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_24_oct_2009) Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 3

FW: Chair's draft of ccNSO IR WG Work Plan
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Forwarded From: Kristina Nordstrom Dear all, The ccNSO Incident Response Working Group has presented a Chair's draft of the IR WG Work Plan, available at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/irwg-work-plan-draft-v2.pdf The draft will be further discussed during the Seoul meeting. Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Candidates from the 2 Houses for Council chair
by Avri Doria Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

hi, the 21st is gone in ROK. the 21st is gone in UTC the 21st is almost gone on the East Coast of the US the 21st still has a few hours in California and a few hours longer in Hawaii. Can anyone responsible from the Houses give the Council an update on when the candidates will be announced by your respective Houses? (of course an announcement of the candidates would be better still) Please! a.

2 2

Board letter to GNSO Council
by Avri Doria Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Hi, Was just asked during another meeting whether there was any idea of what kind of work the Council would be engaged in in order to meet the Board deadline on this. I had to admit that we wee still too busy on the transition details to have discussed this at all on the list. I would like to invite the council to begin considering how you want to handle this. Hopefully discussions have already begun in the SGs. One note: if we wait until the new council is seated to start dealing with this we will have used one week of the council 8 weeks to get it done. a.

14 24

Motion for using a secret ballot for the chair election on 28 Oct.
by Avri Doria Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Hi, I have checked with legal and with Policy Staff and it has been determined: - That voting for Chair may be either by open or closed vote, there is nothing in the bylaws or operating procedures to prohibit a secret ballot. - No default currently exists since nothing is specified in the bylaws or operating procedures, and there is a new Council being seated. The Council could vote on whether to conduct a closed vote which would be decided by a simple majority of both voting houses. - That for election of Council chair, if the 60 % threshold of both houses is met in a face to face vote, there is no need for an absentee vote. Since we have a difference of opinion within the old council, and I assume within the new council on this issue, it makes sense for there to be a vote to determine whether the vote is open or closed. I propose (although I cannot move, as I will not be a voting member at the time the motion is voted on) the following motion: ---- Whereas the ByLaws and Operating Procedures are silent on whether elections are held as open or secret ballots, and the old council has in its history held both open and secret ballots, and the new council has not yet set any precedents, Resolved, The 2009 Ballot for GNSO Council, and any necessary followup ballots, will be held as secret ballots using paper ballots for council members in attendance at the Seoul meetings and, if required, using a 24 email ballot for any absent members. ---- Paper ballots are being prepared in the eventuality that this motion is made, seconded and prevails by a majority in each house. The vote on this motion would be taken as the first item during the Election agenda item of the Wednesday 28 October meeting. I will ask for someone to move and second the motion at that time. Thank you a.

2 4