October 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Wendy Seltzer - Statement of Interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Forwarded From: Wendy Seltzer Statement of Interest: Wendy Seltzer, NCUC Councilor I am an individual member of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency, elected by the NCUC to the GNSO Council. I am a lawyer and law professor, currently a Fellow with the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado Law School and with Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. I created and lead the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, <http://www.chillingeffects.org/>, a website that catalogs threats to free expression online and helps individuals to understand their rights in response. My legal scholarship focuses on intellectual property, technology, free expression, and innovation. I serve on of the boards of two nonprofits, The Tor Project, Inc., promoting privacy and anonymity research, education, and technology; and the World Wide Web Foundation, U.S., dedicated to advancing the web and empowering people by improving Web science, standards, and generative accessibility of Web technology. I do not represent any of these organizations other than NCUC in ICANN. I am also an individual member of the North American Regional At-Large Organization. I will complete my term as At-Large Liaison to the Board at the 2009 Annual Meeting in Seoul. Except as registrant of several domain names, I have no financial interest in ICANN policies. -- Wendy Seltzer Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/ http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Board-Staff-GNSOCouncil/leadership dinner
by Avri Doria Oct. 18, 2009

Oct. 18, 2009

Hi, I have terminated the poll and include a snapshot below. (Actually I include 2 snapshots. One from before I made a mistake and tried to edit the first column to say 'Specific Trademark Issues' instead of 'the TBD Board Letter' - did not realize that it would do what it did to the poll. since I had restricted the poll to one answer per person, it is still easy to count the 'edited' poll, however. ad the first snapeshot does show the lead topic) DAGv3 and specific Trademark Issue got 11 votes AoC and its implications got 9 votes Mitigating malicious conduct measures got 2 votes Since the first two are so close and since we have successfully set two topics in previous dinners, one for the main meal and one for the dessert, I am setting: "DAGv3 and Specific Trademark Issues" as the dinner topic and "AoC and its implications" for the dessert. Thanks for doing the poll. a.

2 1

Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Rosette, Kristina Oct. 17, 2009

Oct. 17, 2009

My SG should trust me enough and have enough respect for my integrity such that my word alone is sufficient. If they don't, it calls into question whether I should be one of its representatives as well as whether I want to be its representative if there is so little trust and respect. If that's the case, I sure hope they'll speak up before I give up any more of my time to this role. Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>; GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Sat Oct 17 03:40:25 2009 Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate But how do you prove to your SG that is actually what you voted (and that you represented them appropriately?). Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Saturday, 17 October 2009 4:16 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Chuck raises an important point. Do the CSG Councilors intend that their votes be secret even within their SG? A secret ballot at the Council level is a different issue from keeping Councilors' votes secret from their constituents. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, October 16, 2009 10:08 am To: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Strictly from a personal point of view: + I favor an open ballot for accountability and transparency reasons, but I also respect the concerns of individual Councilors. + If just one Councilor requests a secret ballot, I then am fine with a secret ballot with at least one caveat that the votes of each SG's reps be communicated to the SG. + If am fine with Avri's suggestion to poll the Council regarding whether to hold a secret or open ballot. I have raised this issue on the RySG list and am waiting their direction. In the end I will respond to the poll in accordance with that direction and not my personal views. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:18 AM Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support the idea of a secret ballot in this case. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

3 2

Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Cyril Chua Oct. 17, 2009

Oct. 17, 2009

Hi William I agree with Mary that there is mistrust. I disagree that the solution is an open vote system as a secret ballot actually gives space for everyone to take a position privately. My position is for a secret ballot. Our stakeholder groups will trust us to vote with integrity. Kind regards, Cyril Chua Partner -------- ATMD Bird & Bird LLP 39 Robinson Road #07-01, Robinson Point, Singapore 068911 Tel: (65) 6534 5266 / Fax: (65) 6223 8762 / DID: (65) 6428 9812 http://www.twobirds.com Bird & Bird and Singapore firm Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva LLP (ATMD) have entered into a global association agreement. For more information on ATMD Bird & Bird LLP in Singapore please click here <http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/PressReleases/Pages/ATMDBirdandBirdLLP…> ________________________________ From: William Drake To: Cyril Chua Cc: GNSO Council Sent: Sat Oct 17 16:19:28 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi Cyril, On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Cyril Chua wrote: I agree with Mary that there is a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN stakeholder groups and it would be easier to built trust if everyone is given the space to cast a secret ballot. Actually, what she said (below) was the opposite, that as there is mistrust in the ICANN community generally, transparency and accountability are important, and hence there should not be a secret ballot. Anyway, there's obviously a variety of views that won't be squared through further debate, so let's just vote and move on. As long as there is no gag order and people's right to publicly declare their stance per usual is not violated, those of us who are compelled to abide by transparency will be able to participate regardless and to avail ourselves of that right at the public meeting. Best, Bill From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:18 AM Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support the idea of a secret ballot in this case. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATMD Bird & Bird LLP is a Singapore law practice registered as a limited liability partnership in Singapore with registration number T08LL0001K. The firm is associated with Bird & Bird, an international legal practice. It is solely a Singapore law practice and is not an affiliate, branch or subsidiary of Bird & Bird or Bird & Bird LLP. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message (including attachments) contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not to take any action in reliance on it nor to disseminate, distribute, publish or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please accept our apologies, delete all copies from your system and notify us at mailto:atmdmail@twobirds.com . Unless it relates to the official business of ATMD Bird & Bird LLP, any opinions or matters expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

GNSO Seoul Agenda / 16.10.09 v1
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 17, 2009

Oct. 17, 2009

Dear All, Attached please find the updated proposed draft agenda for the GNSO related meetings in Seoul. (Please delete previous copies) This should be read in conjunction with the main ICANN agenda found on page: http://sel.icann.org/full-sched Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Rosette, Kristina Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the meeting. I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to exacerbate that problem. In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting will occur. K Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi, I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process. On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING > > For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council > meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009. > > Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting > chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time > as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume > the chair responsibilities. > > If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, > this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no > chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 > October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as > defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined > in the Council Procedures. > > The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. > > The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately > and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business > days following the election. > > In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council > Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will > serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be > held. Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended. I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul meeting. As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday meeting. Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council member polled would in turn be able to vote for: Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the above (In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote would resemble the second round procedure below) The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the roll will be called alphabetically. To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House. - If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point. - If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. - If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for. Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday. The second roll call vote will be between: The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the votes when the results of each house is summed to the other (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of the above If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting at that point. Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning. Thanks, a.

11 24

RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

Thanks Kristina. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Fri, October 16, 2009 12:37 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Seriously? I don't intend my vote to be secret within my SG. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 1:16 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Chuck raises an important point. Do the CSG Councilors intend that their votes be secret even within their SG? A secret ballot at the Council level is a different issue from keeping Councilors' votes secret from their constituents. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, October 16, 2009 10:08 am To: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Strictly from a personal point of view: + I favor an open ballot for accountability and transparency reasons, but I also respect the concerns of individual Councilors. + If just one Councilor requests a secret ballot, I then am fine with a secret ballot with at least one caveat that the votes of each SG's reps be communicated to the SG. + If am fine with Avri's suggestion to poll the Council regarding whether to hold a secret or open ballot. I have raised this issue on the RySG list and am waiting their direction. In the end I will respond to the poll in accordance with that direction and not my personal views. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:18 AM Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support the idea of a secret ballot in this case. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0

Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Rosette, Kristina Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

Why is this akin to closing the meeting? Much more similar to voting by email. Let me be clear: I personally could care less about whether a person I do not vote for is unhappy with me. I do care if that person will hold that vote against my constituency or stakeholder group. I believe that starting a new Council with the possibility of such resentment is not prudent. Finally, I have enough hostility directed at me at ICANN meetings as it is. I should be free to cast my vote without worrying about possible repercussions in the form of greater hostility. On a personal note, I am dismayed that this is even an issue. I don't want to be harassed for how I vote. Why is this not an acceptable reason for us to cast ballots on paper during the meeting? Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Oct 16 05:09:38 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi, 1. It would be my inclination to hold this as a polled vote where each voting member of the council would be asked whether they voted to close the ballot. While we have voted on closing meetings, we have never voted to close a vote: they either were held by email, as a secret ballot, or were held in meeting as open ballots. I would treat closing the vote in the same way I have treated closing a meeting. 2. I know of no occasion where a GNSO council member has been restricted in declaring how he or she voted and why. While I suppose that the GNSO Council could decide on a gag rule, I expect that this would have to done explicitly by motion. a. On 16 Oct 2009, at 10:54, William Drake wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Two questions. > > On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> As there is a difference of opinion within the council on this, it >> seems to me the only path is to vote on whether this ballot is >> secret or not. > > If we do this, would the votes on whether to have a secret vote be > publicly record, as with a motion, or is this qualitatively > different? I'm not familiar with past practice and don't have time > at the moment to search the bylaws for a deconstructable passage. >> >> As I said, I will ask staff to make sure we are set up for a secret >> ballot, should the vote go that way. And I see this as being a >> vote that will only required a majority of the two houses under the >> new Council Procedures that will, hopefully, be approved by then. > > If the vote goes this way, what happens to the rights of elected > representatives to have their vote publicly known? Can we publicly > announce our votes anyway, or would we be constrained from doing > so? If it is the latter then NCUC and perhaps the appointed > councilors will not be able to participate. There is no way in hell > we tell our constituents sorry, we can't tell you how we voted, and > frankly it would be pretty embarrassing in the world outside the > moat as well. > > One might add that it is at least worth contemplating whether a > secret election is in ICANN's institutional interest at this > particular geopolitical juncture. It certainly would be something > for the AoC review panel on accountability to chew on, and would be > a real field day for ICANN's critics in government, civil society, > the press, etc around the world. > > Best, > > Bill

1 0

Acronym Buster!
by Adrian Kinderis Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

I received the following from Chris Chaplow and believe it could be somewhat useful for ICANN Meetings and newbies! Adrian Kinderis Dear all, One of the ideas to come out of the CCT - Sub team, 1 "design scrum" (see earlier post) was an "Acronym helper". This has been requested many times and was discussed at the Sydney GNSO council meeting. One of my programmers has produced a BETA test and located it at: http://www.andalucia.com/icann Feel free to test it by entering the first letters of you favourite ICANN GNSO Acronyms. We used the out of date Acronym list currently on the GNSO website as the basis. I now respectfully ask the BC to "Suggest an Acronym" in the form at the lower part of the page. There are many to do. Feel free to pass this tool to other members and lists of the community who may find it useful. Any testing and comments welcome to me chris(a)andalucia.com<mailto:chris@andalucia.com> In this way we will build up the Acronym database so that the "Acronym Helper" it will be ready to migrate onto the new GNSO website (in the header of every page) when it is launched in due course. Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris(a)andalucia.com<mailto:chris@andalucia.com> Web: www.andalucia.com<http://www.andalucia.com/> Information about Andalucia, Spain.

2 1

Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Avri Doria Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

Hi, Since it does not appear that the 4 SGs managed to negotiate to a common acceptable position on the placement of the NCA appointees, and given that a week has passed since the meeting and the decision to give the council a week to try and find another acceptable solution to the lottery, I believe that we are now in the position of accepting the results of the lottery and allowing the 3 NCAs to start participating with their houses on the decisions concerning candidates for the chair position. Thus, the NCA are allocated according to the following list as determined by the lottery: Terry Davis - Contracted Parties House Olga Cavalli - Non Contracted Parties House Andrei Kolesnikov - Non Voting Seat I will be writing up the process followed and notifying the Board and the Nomcom leadership of these results later today. Thank you. a.

6 10