October 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to Motion for the Response to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Although voteless, I strongly support this. I think that a key to us being able to come up with any sort of acceptable solution in the short time available is to understand the original needs that the IRT solutions were trying to address. Without that, we may just come up with a new set of solutions that don't come close to meeting those needs. Alan At 27/10/2009 05:03 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: >All, >I would like to propose the following friendly amendment to the >motion for the response to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council that >Adrian proposed and Tim seconded: > >"The assistance of members of the Implementation Recommendation Team >("IRT") in answering questions about the IP Clearinghouse and >Uniform Rapid Suspension System recommendations may be useful in the >drafting process. The GNSO Council requests that those members of >the IRT who worked on those recommendations be available to answer >any such questions that may arise, and encourages the GNSO Review >Team to avail itself of this resource." > >I have set forth below a revised proposed motion that includes the >friendly amendment as the second and third sentences of #4. > >-*- >WHEREAS, the ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO evaluate >certain ICANN staff implementation proposals for the protection of >trademarks in new gTLDs based in part on the recommendations from >the Implementation Recommendation Team ("IRT"), public comments, and >additional analysis undertaken by ICANN Staff, as described in the >letter dated 12 October 2009 ><<<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p…>Letter >from Rod Beckstrom & Peter Dengate Thrush to GNSO Council>>. > >WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSO's view by December >14, 2009 on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second >level strings recommended by ICANN Staff based on public input are >consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of >new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for >achieving the GNSO's stated principles and objectives; > >WHEREAS, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to >approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation; > >NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO adopts the following >process to conduct the evaluation requested by the Board: > >1. A GNSO Review Team will be comprised of representatives >designated as follows: the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups >with two (2) representatives each, the Commercial Stakeholder Groups >and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups with four (4) >representatives each, and At-Large with two (2) representatives and >one representative from the Nominating Committee Appointees(1); > >2. Each of the Stakeholder Groups will solicit from their members >their initial position statements on the questions and issues raised >by the ICANN Board letter and the ICANN Staff proposed models for >the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid >Suspension model, and will deliver their initial position statements >on November 4, and with final position statements to be delivered by >November 6, 2009; > >3. Such position statements will be summarized by ICANN Staff and >distributed to the GNSO Review Team to evaluate whether a consensus >can be reached on the ICANN Staff implementation models or other >proposals for the protection of trademarks in the New gTLD Program; > >4. The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those >areas where consensus has already been reached, and seek to develop >consensus on those issues for which consensus could not be >determined. The assistance of members of the IRT in answering >questions about the IP Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension >System recommendations may be useful to this work. The GNSO Council >requests that members of the IRT who worked on those recommendations >be available to answer any such questions that may arise, and >encourages the GNSO Review Team to avail itself of this resource; and > >5. The GNSO Review Team will provide a final report to the GNSO on >or before the GNSO Council's meeting in late November, 2009. > >-*- >K >

1 0

Re: [council] GNSO Council meeting Wednesday 28 October at 8:00
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

You have my undying gratitude! Alan At 27/10/2009 04:13 AM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: >There will be a continental breakfast for the >Councillors behind the screen as you walk in the >door on the left from 7 am onwards.

1 0

Election for Chair
by Adrian Kinderis Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Dear Avri, In preparation for tomorrow's Council meeting, please note that the Contracted parties house has chosen Stéphane Van Gelder as its Vice Chair and named Chuck Gomes as its candidate for Chair. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

1 0

RE: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

Avri, Adrian made the motion, and I second it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Mon, October 26, 2009 5:23 pm To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Him, I have aded this to the list of motions to be voted for the meeting. are there names for motion and second? thanks a. On 25 Oct 2009, at 09:40, Adrian Kinderis wrote: > All, > > During yesterdays discussions it was determined that a Review Team > should be developed to review the issues and positions of members > within the GNSO with regard to the ICANN Board letter to the GNSO in > order to formulate the appropriate response to that letter. > > Please see the suggested motion below. We would propose to vote on > this motion on Wednesday’s GNSO Council meeting. Whilst we > understand that this does not allow for the usual seven days we > would ask that, on this occasion, because of the tight timelines, > that all Stakeholder Groups act quickly to discuss this motion > (potentially utilising time during Stakeholder Group day on Tuesday). > > Glen – could you please forward this to each Stakeholder Group chair > in order to promote this motion as efficiently as possible? Thanks! > > Thanks. > > Adrian > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WHEREAS, the ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO evaluate > certain ICANN staff implementation proposals for the protection of > trademarks in new gTLDs based in part on the recommendations from > the IRT, public comments, and additional analysis undertaken by > ICANN Staff, as described in the letter dated 12 October 2009 > <<Letter from Rod Beckstrom & Peter Dengate Thrush to GNSO Council>>. > > WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSO’s view by December > 14, 2009 on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second > level strings recommended by ICANN Staff based on public input are > consistent with the GNSO’s proposed policy on the introduction of > new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for > achieving the GNSO’s stated principles and objectives; > > WHEREAS, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to > approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation; > > NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO adopts the following > process to conduct the evaluation requested by the Board: > > 1. A GNSO Review Team will be comprised of > representatives designated as follows: the Registrar and Registry > Stakeholder Groups with two (2) representatives each, the > Commercial Stakeholder Groups and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder > Groups with four (4) representatives each, and At-Large with two (2) > representatives and one representative from the Nominating Committee > Appointees(1); > > 2. Each of the Stakeholder Groups will solicit > from their members their initial position statements on the > questions and issues raised by the ICANN Board letter and the ICANN > Staff proposed models for the implementation of the Trademark > Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension model, and will deliver > their initial position statements on November 4, and with final > position statements to be delivered by November 6, 2009; > > 3. Such position statements will be summarized by > ICANN Staff and distributed to the GNSO Review Team to evaluate > whether a consensus can be reached on the ICANN Staff implementation > models or other proposals for the protection of trademarks in the > New gTLD Program; and > > The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those areas > where consensus has already been reached, an seek to develop > consensus on those issues for which consensus could not be > determined. The GNSO Review Team will provide a final report to the > GNSO on or before the GNSO council’s meeting in late November, 2009.

2 1

Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
by Adrian Kinderis Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

All, During yesterdays discussions it was determined that a Review Team should be developed to review the issues and positions of members within the GNSO with regard to the ICANN Board letter to the GNSO in order to formulate the appropriate response to that letter. Please see the suggested motion below. We would propose to vote on this motion on Wednesday's GNSO Council meeting. Whilst we understand that this does not allow for the usual seven days we would ask that, on this occasion, because of the tight timelines, that all Stakeholder Groups act quickly to discuss this motion (potentially utilising time during Stakeholder Group day on Tuesday). Glen - could you please forward this to each Stakeholder Group chair in order to promote this motion as efficiently as possible? Thanks! Thanks. Adrian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO evaluate certain ICANN staff implementation proposals for the protection of trademarks in new gTLDs based in part on the recommendations from the IRT, public comments, and additional analysis undertaken by ICANN Staff, as described in the letter dated 12 October 2009 <<Letter from Rod Beckstrom & Peter Dengate Thrush to GNSO Council<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p…>>>. WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSO's view by December 14, 2009 on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second level strings recommended by ICANN Staff based on public input are consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for achieving the GNSO's stated principles and objectives; WHEREAS, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO adopts the following process to conduct the evaluation requested by the Board: 1. A GNSO Review Team will be comprised of representatives designated as follows: the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups with two (2) representatives each, the Commercial Stakeholder Groups and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups with four (4) representatives each, and At-Large with two (2) representatives and one representative from the Nominating Committee Appointees(1); 2. Each of the Stakeholder Groups will solicit from their members their initial position statements on the questions and issues raised by the ICANN Board letter and the ICANN Staff proposed models for the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension model, and will deliver their initial position statements on November 4, and with final position statements to be delivered by November 6, 2009; 3. Such position statements will be summarized by ICANN Staff and distributed to the GNSO Review Team to evaluate whether a consensus can be reached on the ICANN Staff implementation models or other proposals for the protection of trademarks in the New gTLD Program; and The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those areas where consensus has already been reached, an seek to develop consensus on those issues for which consensus could not be determined. The GNSO Review Team will provide a final report to the GNSO on or before the GNSO council's meeting in late November, 2009.

3 2

Excerpt from ICANN chair's speech at the welcome ceremony today on new gTLD issues
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

From: http://sel.icann.org/node/6738 We've obviously just published the third version of the draft applicant guidebook for new gTLDs. Immediately, one of our commitments, one of our promises becomes relevant, because we have committed that prior to implementing, we will adequately address competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse processes, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection. These are the issues that have emerged as the result of the introduction discussions. And so we are working through those issues this week, taking further advantage of the huge efforts the IRT -- let me thank that group again -- the huge efforts that the IRT put into proposing a solution for that last issue of rights protection. We will also be discussing the report the board commissioned into investigating the impact of simultaneously adding DNSSEC, new TLDs, and IPv6 to the root. Now, the root scaling work so far has identified that implementing DNSSEC in the root will lead to a sudden increase in the load on the root servers because each DNS inquiry will involve more data returned from the root servers. And so there are now calls emerging from the technical community to implement this change first: Wait for the system to stabilize and then measure the impact before adding many new TLDs to the root. The board is waiting for final input from RSSAC and SSAC on the work that has to be done, but it seems agreed that there is a great deal of room in the system for adaptation, particularly over time, and the issue is not so much to watch for or try and create hard limits on capacity. It's the possibility of too much change too fast. So it's important for us to look for the signs of danger in the system and have procedures in place to do something effective when we detect those signs. And finally, let me mention an innovation in our bottom-up policy development. We are trialing a new format in relation to the vertical integration argument in relation to new gTLDs, so we have two prominent groups of protagonists on opposite sides of this particular debate, and we've agreed on a debate-style format in which each team will make an opening statement and then alternately present on a series of agreed points of difference with a closing statement by each. There will be questions and answers from the floor, and at the end possibly even a straw poll for the audience to indicate who it thinks has put the best case. So I hope to see you there as we trial these new ways of getting to the bottom of policy development processes and making sure that the board gets the best advice about the community reaction. So I hope to see you there at 3:00 in the Crystal A for that one.

1 0

RE: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 25, 2009

Oct. 25, 2009

That sounds reasonable to me, especially if it will get unanimous approval of the interim procedures. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Sat, October 24, 2009 7:51 pm To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, It is my understanding from our discussion yesterday that we had rough consensus on voting to adopt the updated Council Operating Procedures, but to state in the motion that certain areas remain outstanding (e.g., abstentions) and to require that those areas be priority work to be completed by a date certain. Two questions: 1. Is that correct? 2. What areas, other than abstentions, remain outstanding? I'll start drafting a substitute motion once I've heard back from enough of you so that I'm comfortable I'm on the right track. K

1 0

Slides from WG updates posted
by Marika Konings Oct. 25, 2009

Oct. 25, 2009

Dear All, The presentations from yesterday's Working Group update session have been posted here: http://sel.icann.org/node/6729 and http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/. With best regards, Marika

1 0

ccNSO and GAC joint meetings preparation
by Olga Cavalli Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Hi, thanks for participating in the lunch. These are the topics that were mentioned as important to be raised during our ccNSO/GNSO and GAC/GNSO meetings: ccNSO: Edmond will comment about: In relation with the working team for IDNs, the group is not formed yet because there must be 5 (five) representatives from each SO, but ccNSO is having difficulties in defining them. >From the GNSO perspective there could be flexibility in relation with allowing more participants from ccNSO (seven?) and also allowing observers, allways keeping in mind that the group remains small. Technical issues: some technical considerations may work for ccTLDs but may not work for IDN gtlds. (Variances) Revision of status of IDN PDP Working group, if needed. GAC Philipp will ask GAC: How does GAC envision their role in the light of this new stage in ICAN under the Affirmation of Committments. How does GAC will broaden participation from all countries. Mike will comment about trademark issues in relation with new gtlds. Please add other comments thay I may have missed. Thanks again for your participation. Best regards Olga

2 1

Confirmation of new practice at face to face open council meetings
by Avri Doria Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Hi. After this mornings meeting I wanted to confirm several actions that I took away from the meeting: 1. the seats at the table for open council meetings will be reserved for council members, liaisons and relevant staff. Chair, vice-chair (s) and staff will request that others take the observers seats. For future meetings name placards will be requested to those to be seated at the table. 2. the observers will be requested to queue at the microphones, and the chair will be responsible for giving them the floor at appropriate points, though precedence for speaking will be given to those around the table. 3. any further changes to the practices at open meetings will be discussed by the new council at its discretion. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted the will of that meeting. a.

2 1