October 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Music Night in Seoul
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Staff: If you will be attending the ICANN Meeting in Seoul, please plan to join us for a night of open mic entertainment on Wednesday, 28 October - and bring your own instruments. We always have an open mic at ICANN meetings - but this one is going to be a little different, and much more fun! A local band will be playing classic tunes on Wednesday night and you are invited to attend and join in. Anyone can jump up on stage to sing or play, and we're hoping many of you will feel inspired to do just that. Whether you play the guitar or the sax, the xylophone or the triangle, you are encouraged to add to a tremendous night of fun by packing up your instruments and bringing them with you to ICANN's 36th meeting in Seoul. Be sure to spread the word - pack your instruments - and come enjoy the fun! Best, Tanzanica [cid:3338817086_7501693] Tanzanica S. King Communications and Publications Manager ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way | Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA tel +1 310 823 9358 | fax +1 310 823 8649 http://icann.org _______________________________________________ mtg-staff mailing list mtg-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:mtg-staff@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/mtg-staff

1 0

Affirmation of Commitments/Affirmation d'Engagements ICANN, Español, Français, Português, قاموس إنجليزي - عربي
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed motions concerning approval of the updated GNSO Council Procedures
by Avri Doria Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

Hi, I am proposing the following. They will require someone in the new council to make the motion and to second them. the amendment is the amendment that was discussed before the review period and which is listed in the document itself. 28 Oct Motions Possible motions for 28 October Motion to ammend update GNSO Council Operating Procedure Motion by: Seconded by: Whereas the original language recommend by the GNSO Operations Work Team stated on page 5 of the Operating Procedure that > To pass, a motion must attain a majority of the votes cast in each house unless otherwise specified in these procedures or in the ICANN Bylaws. Abstentions count as votes cast and shall include a reason for the abstention. This has the effect of making an abstention count the same as a vote against except as described in ICANN Bylaws, ANNEX A, GNSO Policy-Development Process, Section 3, Initiation of PDP. Resolved, The language will be replaced with the following: > Unless otherwise specified in these procedures or in the ICANN Bylaws, to pass a motion or other action, greater than 50% of the eligible voters in each House must cast affirmative votes. For all votes taken, the number of eligible voters in each House shall be fixed to the number of seats allocated in the Bylaws (a.k.a. the denominator) and is not affected by the number of members present or absent at the meeting in which the motion or other action is initiated. Council members are permitted to abstain in any vote, but must provide a reason which shall be recorded in the minutes along with the abstention. ---- Motion to accept updated GNSO council Procedures Whereas The OSC, and its Operations Work Team, produced an updated version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedure that were in line the the Board update of the ByLaws related to the structure of the GNSO, and, the update was submitted to a period pf Public Comment extending from 25 September 2009 until 16 October 2009, and, the comments have been analysed and discussed by the GNSO council Resolved The GNSO Council Operating Procedures defined in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-operating-procedures-24sep09-en.pdf and as amended (if amended in previous motions), are accepted. These updated Council Procedures will be in force once approved and will be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for review. ---- these have been included on https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_oct_motions

1 2

Reminder - House Candidates for the Chair election n 28 October.
by Avri Doria Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

Hi, Just wanted to remind the members of the incoming houses that the deadline for the announcement of your single house candidate for chair is tomorrow. > Part 2 _Each House determines a Candidate_ > > 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. thanks a.

2 2

Share car from airport?
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

Is there anyone else arriving in Seoul on JL flight 959 from Tokyo at 8:55 pm on Thursday who would be interested in sharing a private car? The flat rate is KRW 130,000 or about US$110 (arranged by the hotel). Alan

1 0

comments on Operating Procdures
by Avri Doria Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

Hi, My email was flakey for a few days, so I may have missed seeing this (though on a quick search, I do not find it in the archive either) Rob Hoggarth's analysis of the comments on the Operating Procedures can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-operating-procedures-2009/msg00003.html There was also a Policy Staff contribution to the dialogue on Operating Procedures which can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-operating-procedures-2009/msg00001.html Discussion of this is planned for both Saturday and Wednesday, with the vote to be held as pat of the first Agenda item on Wednesday 28 October. We still need to produce motion for approving these Operating Procedures. thanks a.

1 0

FW: Statement of interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

Forwarded From: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency CURRENT VOCATION, EMPLOYER/POSITION; TYPE OF WORK Engineer, Director of international projects at Deutsche Telekom (DT), a global telecommunications networks and services provider. Perform synergy evaluation of network infrastructure technologies, harmonization of internet naming and addressing issues. FINANCIAL OR LEADERSHIP INTERESTS DT through the brand T-Online is - inter alia - providing registrar services. My current position is not related to this part of DT business. COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IN POLICY OUTCOMES None. I'm not representing other parties. ARRANGEMENTS CONCERNING MEMBERSHIP Member of the ISPCP constituency, the GNSO improvements plan team, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC), the GNSO Council Operations team and the PDP working team

1 0

New Registry Services Proposals posted
by Patrick Jones Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Dear Council members, ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on two requests - one from Neustar and one from Fundació puntCAT. Neustar has submitted a request to offer DNSSEC in dot-BIZ: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009010. puntCAT has submitted a request for one and two-character names in dot-CAT: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009009. 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

IANA Business Excellence initiative?
by Rosette, Kristina Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Did I miss the background on this? What is it and why is it on the agenda for our 28 October meeting? Thanks. K

2 1

RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

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

7 8

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

Draft GNSO Council minutes 8 October 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 8 October 2009. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

David Taylor: Statement of Interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

Forwarded From: Taylor, David Statements of Interest: - Identify the participant¹s current vocation, employer and position. Partner in Lovells LLP international law firm heading up the Lovells Domain Name Practice - Characterise the type of work performed in the answer above. Advising clients in intellectual property and technology issues and in particular the protection of brands online and in respect to domain names; I assist clients with domain name strategy, domain name registrations and domain name recovery on a global basis. Also act as a domain name panelist with WIPO (for the UDRP) the Czech Arbitration Court (for .EU and the UDRP) and Nominet (for .UK). - Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. In particular, disclose if the participant or an affiliate or a client intend or are considering applying for a new TLD. None. Lovells has made no decision regarding whether to pursue a TLD. I am involved in advising clients on new gTLD progress and issues and certain of these clients are considering applying for a new TLD. - Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development or implementation outcomes. Is the participant representing other parties with these interests? No direct commercial interest in ICANN policy development. - Describe any arrangements or agreements between the participant and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding the participant¹s selection as a member. I am an individual member of the IPC and member of various other Intellectual Property organisations; INTA, Marques, ECTA and the Society of Computers and Law. No agreement or understanding with any of these groups as to participation or views in connection with the GNSO. ________________________________

1 0

RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

I think notifying the SIC was premature. The process calls for the Council to acknowledge and confirm the results. That implies to me a formal action. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 1:22 pm To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, This occurred during the part of the call where I was off line and the call was being chaired by Chuck. when I came back on the cal I asked for clarification of what had been decided. Chuck confirmed in an earlier message that this was the case. I expect it was a consent sort of thing where no one objected, they way the council has made all of it consensus decisions. I would note, that I have informed the SIC of the decision on NCA placement as I indicated I would in my first message on this topic this morning. I believe the decision is made and it is time to move on. a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:07, Tim Ruiz wrote: >> the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended >> 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent. > > When did we do this? Was it a vote, or a respond if you object kind of > thing? > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> > Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:36 am > To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi, > > The problems are: > > - the request for an extension of time was not madeuntil after the > drawing happened, thus making the request something that happened > after the the decision was made. > > - the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended > 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent. > > a. > > On 15 Oct 2009, at 18:25, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >> >> The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the >> timeline. >> We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I >> certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach >> unanimity. When do we ever expect that? >> >> The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an >> assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga >> seemed >> flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to have, >> but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable. >> >> >> Tim >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses >> From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am >> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >> Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> >> Hi Stéphane, >> >> The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained >> by >> challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus >> processes. However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're >> saying here. May I pose four questions, please: >> >> On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: >> >>> This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a >>> solution which >>> was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the >>> solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair. >>> >>> I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can, >>> and the >>> proposed option 1 did that. >> >> First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as >> follows: >> >>> >>> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House >>> >>> All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted >>> parties house. >>> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted >>> parties house >>> >>> Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent >>> non voting role >> >> So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the >> last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted. >> And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting >> seat, which he clearly did not want. So on what basis can it be said >> that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes? >> >> Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and >> again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did >> the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference? You >> had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said >> nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we >> should do what we agreed to do. >> >> Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you >> could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council >> is >> obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself. >> Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g. >> through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to >> someone? >> >> Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have >> been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger >> world >> if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house? >> >> Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking. >> >> Thanks much, >> >> Bill >> >> >> > >

2 1

GNSO Seoul schedule
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Dear All, Attached is the draft proposed GNSO related schedule for the ICANN meetings in Seoul which should be read together with the full ICANN Schedule http://sel.icann.org/full-sched Rooms and times are subject to change. Hope this helps! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

> the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended > 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent. When did we do this? Was it a vote, or a respond if you object kind of thing? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:36 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, The problems are: - the request for an extension of time was not madeuntil after the drawing happened, thus making the request something that happened after the the decision was made. - the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent. a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 18:25, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the > timeline. > We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I > certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach > unanimity. When do we ever expect that? > > The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an > assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga seemed > flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to have, > but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi Stéphane, > > The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained by > challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus > processes. However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're > saying here. May I pose four questions, please: > > On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >> This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a >> solution which >> was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the >> solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair. >> >> I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can, >> and the >> proposed option 1 did that. > > First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as > follows: > >> >> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House >> >> All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted >> parties house. >> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted >> parties house >> >> Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent >> non voting role > > So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the > last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted. > And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting > seat, which he clearly did not want. So on what basis can it be said > that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes? > > Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and > again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did > the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference? You > had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said > nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we > should do what we agreed to do. > > Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you > could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council is > obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself. > Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g. > through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to > someone? > > Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have > been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger world > if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house? > > Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking. > > Thanks much, > > Bill > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Kristina, Are you otherwise okay with the paper ballot process Avri describes? 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: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:59 am To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> How is this different? I don't recall that we took a vote to use email balloting each time that we did so. The fact that we are voting on persons - not policies - makes it even more important that Councilors have the opportunity to cast their votes privately. I disagree with your suggestion. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:51 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi, I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret. So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present. In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses. ballot for the first ballot: Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above ballot for the 2nd round* Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above - Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others. Would this work for people? a. * in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round. On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a > roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of > one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient. > > If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 > Each House determines a Candidate > > > Hi, > > Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be > reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote. > > We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their > vote but their House. > > Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? > > a. > > On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >> Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I >> don't know the limitations of the election software. >> >> Chuck >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina >>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM >>> To: avri(a)psg.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 >>> Each House determines a Candidate >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the timeline. We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach unanimity. When do we ever expect that? The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga seemed flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to have, but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Stéphane, The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained by challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus processes. However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're saying here. May I pose four questions, please: On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a > solution which > was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the > solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair. > > I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can, > and the > proposed option 1 did that. First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as follows: > > Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House > > All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted > parties house. > Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted > parties house > > Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent > non voting role So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted. And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting seat, which he clearly did not want. So on what basis can it be said that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes? Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference? You had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we should do what we agreed to do. Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council is obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself. Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g. through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to someone? Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger world if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house? Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Thanks much, Bill

2 1

Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Dear Councillors, Council wide nominations are closed. http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-12oct09.htm There are 3 candidates who have been duly nominated, seconded and submitted candidacy statements: Olga Cavalli http://gnso.icann.org/elections/cavalli-statement-12oct09.htm Stéphane van Gelder http://gnso.icann.org/elections/van-gelder-statement-14oct09.htm Chuck Gomes http://gnso.icann.org/elections/gomes-statement-14oct09.htm We have now reached the Part 2 where each House determines a Candidate. This process closes on 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. Part 2 _Each House determines a Candidate_ 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) 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. (Note: The Election of Vice chairs is house specific and will be defined elsewhere) Please 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

3 3

FW: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Forwarded From: Avri Doria Hi, We have had a few open votes for chair held in meetings during my tenure on the council, but you are right none have been held that way recently. And all of the elections for vice-chair have been held openly in meetings. One problem we have is that the new council is not seated until Wednesday 28 October, and the old council (us) is not empowered to vote in this election before then. We had decided as part of the transition plan to hold the election on the Wednesday, and had scheduled a session on the weekend where the candidates would be able to speak as well as a last chance during the meeting themselves.. That to me meant an open vote, which as I say is not completely unheard of in the council. It is, I suppose, possible to come up with schemes for secret ballots within the constraints of seating the new council on Wednesday if this is required by the council members. a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 13:25, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > 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. > > >

1 0

Chair nomination - Chuck Gomes accepts
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Dear Councillors, Jordi Iparraguirre, a gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Council member, has duly nominated Chuck Gomes for the position of Council chair. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07615.html Stéphane van Gelder, a Registrar Stakeholder Group Council member, has duly seconded the nomination. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07620.html Chuck Gomes has accepted the nomination and has submitted a candidacy statement in writing to the Council that is also posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/elections/index.html where the three other candidates statements are posted. Thank you, Kind regards. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

FW: [council] Nominating Chuck Gomes for GNSO chair
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

FYI Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:11 PM To: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: RE: [council] Nominating Chuck Gomes for GNSO chair My acceptance and candidate statement in response to the nomination for Council chair made by Jordi and seconded by Stephane is attached and pasted below. Chuck Gomes I accept the nomination for GNSO Council Chair and thank the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) members for their confidence in me and Stephane for seconding the nomination. My candidate statement follows. First of all, I think it is important to remind Councilors and the GNSO community that I was elected as a member of the Council to represent the RySG. Therefore my role as a Councilor has always been to represent the RySG on all matters as directed by the RySG and have not been there to represent the views of my company, VeriSign, or my personal views, as required by the RySG Charter. Going forward, that will not change; in cases where I need to represent the RySG I will do so independently of any other roles I have and will make it clear when I function in that capacity. I sincerely believe that I have never directly represented the views of VeriSign in my three years on the Council but only the views of the RySG. I have stated personal views and I have answered questions about VeriSign when asked or clarified information about VeriSign when appropriate. In contrast to my role as a RySG Councilor, if elected chair, my responsibilities would be to lead the Council in a neutral manner, a task I commit to fulfill to the best of my ability. I would thus be wearing two hats on the Council: 1) Chair; 2) RySG representative. I understand that it is critical to communicate clearly which hat I am wearing and I am committed to doing that. Hopefully, I have demonstrated my ability to lead neutrally and to distinguish between my roles during my service as Council vice chair over the past two years as well as in the GNSO groups that I have chaired in the past. To additionally facilitate my ability to function as Chair, my intent is to rely more heavily on the other two RySG Councilors to represent the registries as much as feasible. I fully recognize the size of the chair workload. I have experienced a portion of that as vice chair but realize that it will be larger as chair. It will be even greater as we take on the challenges of completing the transition to a bicameral Council and implement all of the GNSO improvement recommendations in the coming months. I, like probably all others on the Council, have significant responsibilities to my employer that are outside what I do in the ICANN community. In that regard, I can say that the management of VeriSign has given me permission to devote the time needed to serve as chair and they fully understand that I am there to serve the broader community and not VeriSign. I will not promise to devote as much time to the Council as Avri has. I have been amazed at the time she has donated to the GNSO during her two terms as chair. We owe a great deal of gratitude to her. I believe she has often worked the equivalent of a full time work week if not more on Council matters and has sacrificed paid work for volunteer work. To be successful, I will need to rely more on Staff support and have to delegate some tasks as appropriate. With those caveats, I will do everything in my power to provide the leadership needed. I do plan to continue one thing that Avri did that I believe has been very effective: she involved me as vice chair in nearly every chair decision she made. If elected as chair, I plan to do the same with the new vice chairs. I strongly believe that two heads are better than one in leading the Council and three will be better still. We will not always agree, as Avri and I did not, but our decisions will be better because of our collaboration. In the coming year, the GNSO Council and the GNSO community as a whole will be contributing to the completion of three projects that may be the most significant in our history: the restructuring and improvements of the GNSO; the introduction of new gTLDs; and the introduction of IDN TLDs. All three of these efforts have been going on for years. Over those years I actively participated in all three endeavors both as a Councilor and before I became a Councilor. I believe that the experience and knowledge I gained regarding the multitude of issues involved, including competing points of view, provides me a level of understanding that will give me a solid basis for leading the Council. That combined with my continuous involvement going back to before the formation of ICANN and the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) gives me a historical perspective that should be helpful on the other issues that we have before us. Finally, we don't have to go back very far to a time when Glen de Saint Gery was the only support we had in the GNSO. Glen has always provided top notch support and she continues to be a member of our team without whom we would be lost. But we now also have an excellent team of ICANN Policy Staff members that contributes greatly to our work. In that regard, it is essential that the Council Chair be able to work effectively with that team. Fortunately, I have had the opportunity in various capacities to develop strong working relationships with all the members of that team except the very newest. We are at a significant change point in the GNSO. I personally am very optimistic that it will be a very constructive and positive point for us but we have a lot of work in front of us that none of us can do alone. We will all need to work cooperatively as a team and we will need to involve more members of the community to maximize the benefit of the changes. I am ready to contribute to our efforts in whatever way the Council and the community trusts me to do.

1 0

Nominating Chuck Gomes for GNSO chair
by Jordi Iparraguirre Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Der all, I would like to nominate Chuck Gomes to the position of Chair of the GNSO Council. His experience and demonstrated ability as vice chair, as well as his leadership and deep knowledge of ICANN will benefit the whole community. Thanks. jordi -- Jordi Iparraguirre Fundació puntCAT www.domini.cat

3 2

RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Possible Face to Face Meeting
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Jeff, It is too much to ask for an additional trip of any length this year, if at all. I am copying the Council list so everyone is informed that this request is coming from one of the PPSC work teams. The new Council ought to prioritize this work along with all of its other work, as its first effort at and after Seoul. I certainly do not think it is as big a priority as several other ongoing efforts on Council and in WGs. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:22 AM To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Possible Face to Face Meeting Dear All, As most of you are aware, the PDP-WT has made slow progress on the new Policy Development Process partly due to limited attendance and participation over the last few months. With the new Council taking its seat in Seoul, we have been discussing ways to speed up the process and come to a timely agreement on the new Policy Development Process. As a result, we would like to propose to organise a 1.5 - 2 day face to face meeting of the PDP-WT. The objective of this meeting would be to wrap up the discussions on the different stages and reach agreement on the overall recommendations and proposed changes to the ICANN by-laws in order to implement the new PDP. To facilitate such a meeting, ICANN has informed me that it would take care of arranging the logistics and provide funding to a limited number of participants (e.g. 1 participant from each constituency, Advisory Committee, etc.). Taking into account the geographic spread of the participants of the WT, the proposal would be to organize the meeting on the US East Coast, e.g. Washington DC. Of course, remote participation facilities would be made available for those not able to travel to the meeting. Ideally such a meeting would be held before the end of the year or in early January at the latest. The WT might want to discuss this proposal in further detail at its meeting coming Thursday and on the e-mail list prior to Seoul. If there is support for the organisation of such a face to face meeting, the next step would be to confirm a date and location as soon as possible so that the necessary arrangements can be made in a timely fashion. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / <http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz _____ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

REVISED:Old and new Council members
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear All, My apologies to the Nominating Committee Appointees that were left off the list! The current list of Councillors can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.html Here is the list of the new Councillors who will be seated at the Council meeting on 28 October in Seoul: Contracted Parties House: ========================= Registrar Stakeholder Group gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Adrian Kinderis - Australia Edmon Chung - Asia Tim Ruiz - North America Chuck Gomes - North America Stéphane van Gelder -Europe Jordi Iparraguirre - Europe Non Contracted Parties House: ============================= Commercial Stakeholder Group Non Commercial Stakeholder Group CBUC: Mike Rodenbaugh - North America Mary Wong - Asia Zahid Jamil - Pakistan William Drake - Europe Wendy Seltzer - North America ICANN Board Appointees IPC: Kristina Rosette - North America Rafik Dammak - Africa David Taylor - Europe Debra Hughes - North America Rosemary Sinclair - Australia ISPCP: Mark McFadden - North America Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Europe Nominating Committee Appointees =============================== Olga Cavalli - Argentina Terry Davis - North America Andrei Kolesnikov - Russia Observers/Liaisons - non voting =============================== ALAC Liaison: Alan Greenberg ccNSO Council Observer: Han Chuan Lee Please 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

Candidacy statement for Stéphane Van Gelder
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear GNSO Councillors, It is an honour to be nominated for such a crucial position as that of GNSO Council Chair, my thanks to Adrian Kinderis and Chuck Gomes. I am the General manager of INDOM, a French registrar. INDOM provides domain management services to large and medium size companies. INDOM also serves as a consultant to the City of Paris on the .PARIS project. INDOM has no other role in this project and does not serve in any registry capacity. I was elected to the Council by the Registrars Constituency at the end of 2008. Before this, I served as Treasurer for the Registrars Constituency. I was elected to this position in May 2008, after joining the Constituency in December 2007. My position on the Council is that of European representative for the Registrar Stakeholder Group. As can be seen from the dates listed above, I am relatively new to the ICANN process as an active member of a Supporting Organisation. However, it is a process I had been following for a while, either remotely or by actually going to ICANN meetings (my first was Amsterdam 2002). So why move from being an observer to an active participant? The answer may sound like a cliché, but I am a passionate believer in the Internet, and in the governance model that we have. It is so dynamic because it allows people and entities from all walks of life to take part, and to do so with a real possibility of making themselves heard and having an influence on the way the Internet works and is managed. Since joining the Council, I have carried that philosophy over to the work I have done here. I am or have been involved in the Travel Drafting Team, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC), the IDN gTLD fast-track Working Group (IDNG), the Joint IDN Working Group (JIG), the Whois Drafting Team, the Restructuring Drafting Team, the RAA Drafting Team and the GAC Drafting Team. In all these groups, and in general Council work, I have found the GNSO to be a place of rich dialogue, despite sometimes strongly diverging viewpoints, and of openness. I believe the Chair must be an impartial and neutral facilitator for dialogue within the GNSO. I see this leadership position as one where a careful balance is required between the need to set a direction for the Council's work, the ability to listen with an open mind and respect the opinions and wishes the SG representatives bring from their groups, weigh the workload and keep it at a level where effective results remain possible, and to ensuring that the GNSO meets its deadlines and produces the work the entire community expects of it. The GNSO also needs to interact with the other SOs and ACs on a permanent basis. I am convinced the GNSO is at the heart of the ICANN process and will look to keeping it there. Why do I see myself as having the ability to carry out this important mission? What do I bring to the position of GNSO Council Chair? I am bilingual and bicultural (English and French), which gives me the ability to understand different viewpoints and cultures. I am the General manager of a company which I set up along with two other business partners 10 years ago, and which has grown to become the market leader in its sector. To reach this position requires leadership and organisational skills. It also means weighing the aspirations and ambitions of a trio of business partners whilst staying the course set for the company. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, giving me the technical base required to understand the issues the GNSO faces. Before starting INDOM, I was a print and TV journalist for 10 years. This meant staying curious about everything; interacting with people of different backgrounds; having the necessary confidence to express myself in public; talk or write in a way that remains accessible to people with different knowledge, attention and experience levels; and having a strong respect for the truth and for the facts. I have tried to provide as comprehensive a statement as possible. However, please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. I look forward to seeing you all again in Seoul and to welcoming our 7 new Council members there. Kind regards, Stéphane Van Gelder

1 0

RE: [council] RySG Position re. NCA Seat Assignments
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

1 0

Position on NCA seatings
by William Drake Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Hi, Ok, I've consulted with the current and incoming NCSG councilors, as well as the current and incoming NCUC Exec. Committee. I have yet to hear back from two of the three board appointees who'll be seated in Seoul (not surprising, being new to the process and not yet comfortably ensconced in office etc), but everyone else is unanimous and it's been a week since the council call, so I'll report back now. Our position is that the lottery results should stand. The council agreed to a process, and Avri followed it just as the motion called for. We do not believe that it a good practice to agree to all follow a process and then toss its results because someone's first preference is not realized. If there were second thoughts about how we were proceeding, these should have been expressed and worked out prior to the lottery deadline. But nobody challenged it, and only one of four SGs clearly expressed a preference on the list before the default was to kick in. Cheers, Bill

2 1

Debra Y. Hughes: Statement of Interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Forwarded from Debra Y. Hughes: Statement of Interest Debra Y. Hughes - Statement of Interest - 13 October 2009 Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Board Appointee to the GNSO Council I am Senior Counsel for the American National Red Cross. The American National Red Cross is a non-profit organization and one of the 186 member national societies of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the world's largest humanitarian organization that provides assistance without discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. In addition, the American National Red Cross distinguishes itself by feeding and providing emotional support to victims of disasters; processing and distributing lifesaving blood and blood products; offering educational programs that promote health and safety; providing international humanitarian aid; and supporting military members and their families. To further that mission, I draft fundraising, sponsorship and grant agreements; advise the organization on various matters related to its delivery of humanitarian services; and provide advice related to patent, copyright, trademark and publicity concerns. I also work closely with the organization's information security team to develop policies and strategies to leverage the organization's domain portfolio and to handle online abuse and fraud related issues. For example, I assist with managing the unfortunate number of phishing and fraudulent fundraising scams that target the organization's clients and beneficiaries. I hope my work with the GNSO will increase the voice and participation of non-profit and philanthropic organizations in ICANN because these organizations rely upon the Internet and domain name system to communicate with the public about their mission and services, to distribute educational and lifesaving information, and to collect donations to support their operations in a reliable, secure and safe environment. I have no financial or any relevant interests in ICANN or the GNSO. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Chair nomination- Stéphane van Gelder accepts
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear Councillors, Adrian Kinderis, a Registrar Stakeholder Group Council member, has duly nominated Stéphane van Gelder for the position of Council chair. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07606.html Chuck Gomes, a gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Council member, has duly seconded the nomination. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07608.html Stéphane van Gelder has accepted the nomination and will submit a candidacy statement in writing to the Council not later than 23:00 UTC today, 14 October 2009. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Board request for GNSO input on specific trademark issues in the Draft Applicant Guidebook
by Denise Michel Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear GNSO Council members: Attached is the Board's letter to the GNSO Council requesting input on the URS and Clearinghouse recommendations in the gTLD Applicant Guidebook version 3. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct

1 0

Nomination of Stephane Van Gelder
by Adrian Kinderis Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

All, I would like to nominate Stéphane Van Gelder to the position of Chair of the GNSO Council. He has satisfied me and our Stakeholder Group that he can put any personal interests aside and drive the massive amounts of work ahead of us from a position of neutrality and fairness. I also believe that, given his management background, he will be able to effectively manage the priorities the tasks at hand - an imperative quality for the leader of the Council. I hope that folks don't see this as one Registrar looking after another. It has actually been a significant internal process as we have looked across the Council for our next leader. We see Stéphane's leadership qualities as the main driver here. As you would understand the Registrar Stakeholder Group continues to grow with varied perspectives, views and business models (much in the same was the Registry Stakeholder group has) particularly at this time of flux. Please see this endorsement then, of not just a suitable Registrar to fill the position of Chair, but a worthy candidate for all. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

3 2

FW: GNSO Council - resignation and appointment
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

Forwarded From: Metalitz, Steven Glen, for your records, Ute has resigned from the council and David Taylor will complete her term (i.e., the next 16 days!). Steve Fellow IPC members, This morning I received the e-mail below from Ute Decker. Her resignation has been accepted with reluctance but also with warm thanks for all her contributions to the IPC over the past several years. After consultation with the other officers, and pursuant to our by-laws, I am appointing David Taylor to serve as one of our GNSO council reps for the balance of Ute's term (i.e., through October 28). As you all know, David was recently elected to serve his own term on the GNSO council, so in effect he will just be taking office 16 days earlier. Since Ute will not be traveling to Seoul we will not be able to thank her in person there but we will be alert for a suitable occasion to do so in the near future. Steve Metalitz, IPC president

1 0

Mohamed Rafik Dammak: Statement of Interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

Forwarded from Mohamed Rafik Dammak Mohamed Rafik Dammak Statement of Interest Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Board Appointee to the GNSO I am a Research Student at the Interdisciplinary Information Studies, at the University of Tokyo, with focus on Ubiquitous computing, wireless sensor network and embedded systems. I hold a degree in Computer Engineering. I worked before as Software engineer at STMicroelectronics. I am also a DiploFoundation alumni after completion of the Internet Governance Capacity Building program. I participated in the online WIPO course on Intellectual Property. I have joined Creative Commons Tunisian license project as Public co-leader. I am involved in the youth participation at Internet Governance and in the organization of youth workshops and attended as a youth representative. I am member of the remote participation on IGF working group. I have been involved in ICANN community as NCUC individual user member. I am also an ISOC global member. I attended IGF Rio de Janeiro and Hyderabad. I participated at the first Summer School on Internet Governance held in Meissen Germany. I have no financial interests in anything related to ICANN and the GNSO. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Old and new Council
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

Dear All, The current list of Councillors can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.html Here is the list of the new Councillors who will be seated at the Council meeting on 28 October in Seoul: Contracted Parties House: ========================= Registrar Stakeholder Group gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Adrian Kinderis Edmon Chung Tim Ruiz Chuck Gomes Stéphane van Gelder Jordi Iparraguirre Non Contracted Parties House: ============================= Commercial Stakeholder Group Non Commercial Stakeholder Group CBUC: Mike Rodenbaugh Mary Wong Zahid Jamil William Drake Wendy Seltzer ICANN Board Appointees IPC: Kristina Rosette Rafik Dammak David Taylor Debra Hughes Rosemary Sinclair ISPCP: Mark McFadden Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Please 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

Travel Support for Seoul
by Kevin Wilson Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

Dear GNSO Supported Travelers: We understand there has been some concerns about booking travel for community members who have received commitments for travel support from ICANN. Rest assured the travel support team is busy working on your bookings. You should have received notices from BCD on your specific air travel. For the lodging, the hotel has received lists of all known travelers supported by ICANN, and has confirmed that the whole block of hotel rooms are reserved. We are still waiting for confirmation on specific room assignments, and we will let you know as soon as we do. For per diems, most were wired out last Friday. If you believe you have a unique situation, please send a separate email to the ICANN Constituency travel account. If you are acutely concerned about your specific situation, please send an email directly to Kevin Wilson; kevin.wilson(a)icann.org<mailto:kevin.wilson@icann.org> and Steve Antonoff; steve.antonoff(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.antonoff@icann.org> . If you are still concerned about responsiveness, feel free to call Kevin Wilson’s cell phone 323.868.0514 24/7. (I would rather deal with it now than after I land in Seoul!). Best regards and Kamsahamnida Steve and Kevin

1 0

RySG Position re. NCA Seat Assignments
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

13 of 14 RySG members responded to a poll and unanimously supported the following position regarding GNSO Council NCA seat assignments effective 28 October 2009: Primary Choice: Contracted House Non-Contracted House Non-Voting Seat Olga Cavalli Terry Davis Andrei Kolesnikov We would like to know if other SGs would support the above seating assignments. If all SGs do not support the above, then we understand that the random selection process already done would apply as follows and we accept that result: Contracted House Non-Contracted House Non-Voting Seat Terry Davis Olga Cavalli Andrei Kolesnikov Chuck Gomes

2 1

Rosemary Sinclair: Statement of Interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

Forwarded from Rosemary Sinclair: Statement of Interest Rosemary Sinclair - Statement of Interest - 12 October 2009 Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Board Appointee to GNSO I am Managing Director of ATUG, the Australian Telecommunications Users Group, a not for profit, membership funded group representing the interests of organisations using communications and internet services to deliver their own services for their client base. Among the membership are health and educational institutions, community sector organisations, regional community organisations as well as banks, retailers, transport companies and other businesses. I am also Chairman of INTUG, the International Telecommunications Users Group. INTUG has contacts with many groups including consumer groups with an interest in communications services, access and applications. Members have diverse interests in policy outcomes for their own members but INTUG provides a forum for sharing ideas, knowledge and experience to enable the development of shared positions or to support specific positions with information and balanced perspectives. INTUG Head of Delegation to APECTEL and Expert Adviser at OECD CISP meetings. Since 2003 I have represented INTUG at APECTEL meetings every 6 months. APECTEL stakeholders are from the economies around the Asia Pacific Region including PR China, US, Japan, Indonesia, Australia, Chile, Peru, Mexico among the 22 members. Since 2008 I have represented INTUG as an Expert Adviser to the OECD's Communications Infrastructure and Services Policies Working Group. This meeting has discussed a number of Internet related policy issues and developments. In 2008 the Australian Government reviewed the participation of consumer groups in communications policy development and implementation in Australia. I was part of a multi-stakeholder group involved in reviewing existing arrangements and proposing a new structure, responsibilities and funding base for a new organisation, ACCAN - the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network. Since 2003 I been organizing ATUG's Regional Roadshow has involved visiting over 75 towns throughout Australia, travelling over 100,000 kms and speaking with over 3500 community members about the availability and potential of advanced communications services. Recent focus has been on the Internet and e-security. People of all backgrounds attend the town events - local government, older citizens, young students, parents, local business operators, farmers. The shared vision is high quality communications and online services in the remotest parts of Australia. In the future more and more effective use of communications by these groups will depend on the Internet - this is the basis of my interest in participating in the work of ICANN. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Olga Cavalli Candidacy Statement
by Olga Cavalli Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

Dear Council Members, First I want to thank Bill for the nomination and Tony for seconding it. I am happy and honored by this nomination to GNSO Chair Candidate. Since I was appointed by the Noncom to the GNSO in 2007 I have tried to be as much active as possible in my role of council member, in order to understand the dynamics among the different constituencies in the GNSO and also the interaction between the Council and other ICANN organizations and committees as well as the whole Internet community. In relation to the GNSO Restructuring Process, I volunteered and got involved in the following activities: - Chair of the Constituency Operations Working Team. - Member of the Operations Steering Committee OSC (Alternate Chair). - Member of the Planning Team of the GNSO Improvements Process. As I understand that the internationalization of the Internet is a key issue for broadening global participation, I volunteered for the following positions: - GNSO representative in the IDN PDP Working Group. - GNSO representative in the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. - Member of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Report drafting team. In order to promote active participation and interaction between GNSO and other ICANN organizations, I volunteered for the following roles: - GNSO liaison for the ccNSO. - Chair of the GNSO Travel Drafting Team. - GNSO representative in the last two joint AC/SO meetings held in Sydney and Mexico City. If I am elected GNSO Chair I will do my best to accomplish my mission as Noncom Appointee to the GNSO, from a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. I will help GNSO in meeting the restructuring and improvement process requirements, and at the same time follow different policy areas, like new gTLDs, IDNs and others that may arise. This new stage in ICANN, in the light of the Affirmation of Commitments, will bring new communication and interaction challenges among the different ICANN supporting organizations, committees and the ICANN Board. In this sense I would like to help GNSO to improve communications with all of them. The GNSO is a challenging and intensive learning experience, and I would very much like to become chair to lead the Council in these times of change. Thanks. Best regards. Olga Cavalli 12 October 2009. 2009/10/7 Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > > Dear Councillors, > > Bill Drake, a Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Council member, has duly > nominated Olga Cavalli for the position of Council chair. > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07545.html > > Tony Harris, a Commercial Stakeholder Group Council member, has duly > seconded the nomination. > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07553.html > > Olga Cavalli has accepted the nomination and will submit a candidacy > statement in writing to the Council not later than 14 October 2009. > > Thank you, > Kind regards, > Glen > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > >

1 0

Reminder: Invitation to attend ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC
by Denise Michel Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

*Invitation to ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC* *RSVP via email to ** <http://gnso%2Esecretariat@gnso.icann.org/>** <** gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso%2Esecretariat@gnso.icann.org/>* *> **) **by 23:00 UTC Tuesday 13 October to receive the connection details. **Please indicate which call you would like to join (12:00 UTC or 18:00 UTC). * *Title: *ICANN Policy Update Webinar *When: *Thursday 15 October *Time: *12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC Dear ICANN Community Members: This is a reminder for those interested in receiving an update on ICANN gTLD and ccTLD policy activities in advance of ICANN's Seoul meeting. All are welcome to attend this ICANN Policy Department webinar. RSVPs are needed by tomorrow so connection details can be sent to you. Two sessions are being held for the convenience of our global community; please indicate your choice in your email. Material from these sessions will be publicly posted for those interested but unable to attend. *Brief Session Description*: Through brief presentations and a question & answer period, this webinar will provide an update on ongoing GNSO and ccNSO activities, including a status report on the restructuring of the GNSO, ongoing policy development processes, and other working group activities. Updates will be provided on: - IDN ccTLD policy development process - IDN ccTLD Fast Track - ccTLD delegation, redelegation and retirement - Other ccNSO Working Groups - GNSO Restructuring - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) - Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) - Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) - Whois Studies - Possible changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) - Other GNSO Working Groups The webinar is scheduled for 90 minutes, and will be conducted in English only at this time. The content will be presented in PowerPoint along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. There will be time at the end of the session for Q&A. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. Should we run out of time or if you have additional questions after the session, please send them via email to *policy-staff(a)icann.org*. *Meeting Details: *As space is limited, this is an *invitation-only* event. If you would like to participate, please RSVP by 23:00 Tuesday, 13 October via email to the GNSO Secretariat (*gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<http://gnso%2Esecretariat@gnso.icann.org/> *) to secure your place. Please indicate which call you would like to join (12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. *Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members' e-mail address*. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN VP Policy

1 0

Reminder: Invitation to attend ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC
by Denise Michel Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

*Invitation to ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC* *RSVP via email to ** <http://gnso%2Esecretariat@gnso.icann.org/>** <** gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso%2Esecretariat@gnso.icann.org/>* *> **) **by 23:00 UTC Tuesday 13 October to receive the connection details. **Please indicate which call you would like to join (12:00 UTC or 18:00 UTC). * *Title: *ICANN Policy Update Webinar *When: *Thursday 15 October *Time: *12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC Dear ICANN Community Members: This is a reminder for those interested in receiving an update on ICANN gTLD and ccTLD policy activities in advance of ICANN's Seoul meeting. All are welcome to attend this ICANN Policy Department webinar. RSVPs are needed by tomorrow so connection details can be sent to you. Two sessions are being held for the convenience of our global community; please indicate your choice in your email. Material from these sessions will be publicly posted for those interested but unable to attend. *Brief Session Description*: Through brief presentations and a question & answer period, this webinar will provide an update on ongoing GNSO and ccNSO activities, including a status report on the restructuring of the GNSO, ongoing policy development processes, and other working group activities. Updates will be provided on: - IDN ccTLD policy development process - IDN ccTLD Fast Track - ccTLD delegation, redelegation and retirement - Other ccNSO Working Groups - GNSO Restructuring - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) - Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) - Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) - Whois Studies - Possible changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) - Other GNSO Working Groups The webinar is scheduled for 90 minutes, and will be conducted in English only at this time. The content will be presented in PowerPoint along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. There will be time at the end of the session for Q&A. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. Should we run out of time or if you have additional questions after the session, please send them via email to *policy-staff(a)icann.org*. *Meeting Details: *As space is limited, this is an *invitation-only* event. If you would like to participate, please RSVP by 23:00 Tuesday, 13 October via email to the GNSO Secretariat (*gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<http://gnso%2Esecretariat@gnso.icann.org/> *) to secure your place. Please indicate which call you would like to join (12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. *Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members' e-mail address*. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN VP Policy

1 0