December 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports
by Margie Milam Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

Dear All, Please find attached for your review the Final STI Report, which has been updated to include the Minority Reports received to date. I also cleaned up some formatting issues (such as deleting the Board letter attachment) to make the document easier to review and download. Best Regards, Margie Milam ______________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ______________

1 0

Board Update
by Denise Michel Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

Dear Council Members, In reference to agenda item 6.1 (Board update), the preliminary report for the Board's 9 December 2009 meeting has been posted: < http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm> 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

IPC Minority Statement on STI Report
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

All, Please find attached the IPC Minority Statement on the STI report. I understand that an updated report that includes this statement will be circulated soon, but I wanted to ensure that all Councilors had this as soon as it was submitted. K <<IPC minority.pdf>>

1 0

RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

I have no problem with the STI recommendations, and no problem moving it along. But I would like to at least hear from ALAC regarding their minority report before we vote. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 11:46 am To: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> I am in full agreement with both points made by Mary. I think it is especially important, in light of the tremendous effort of the STI to deliver its report in as timely a manner as possible, for us to act on this report asap. I have read the report and I hope others have found the time to read it also. I agree with Mary that the Council would be sending a strong signal to both the community and the Board if it was able to consider the STI report at its next meeting. That may mean some amendments to the motion might be needed, but let's at least talk about it during the next meeting (which means agreeing to an exception in the case of motion 2). Thanks, Stéphane Le 14 déc. 2009 à 18:06, Mary Wong a écrit : Hi all, On motion 4: in light of the concerns and effects that several people have noted about this particular request, and in light further of Stephane's and Mike's earlier emails on issues such as work prioritization and the Council's role in approving such requests, I agree with Tim that we should take the time to seriously discuss this issue, and in a broader context. Even putting the discussion/decision off until our January meeting may allow us to get better information about the PPSC/PDP-WT process to date, and to consider some implications and potential precedents the Council may be setting going forward, in terms of how and why we support these requests (or not). On motion 2: my impression is that the STI process saw a tremendous level of active participation, collaboration and willingness to compromise across all GNSO SGs. The report also shows a great deal of GNSO community consensus as a result of tremendous hard work on the part of all SG representatives, particularly in meeting the very tight deadline originally set by the Board. My understanding is that the only outstanding minority report is one from ALAC (and I understand, further, that this will pertain to only one or two points in the STI report). As such, I would urge the Council not to postpone voting on this motion, and send a strong signal to the Board, ICANN staff and community that the consensus-driven process works, and has resulted in a workable and broadly-acceptable proposal for one of the overarching issues in new gTLDs previously identified by the Board. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate 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 >>> "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> 12/14/2009 9:55 AM >>> For motion 3 it makes sense to make an exception and delay a vote the PDP. We just received the Issues Report so it seems premature to be voting on a PDP, or at least to do it well informed. On the other hand, not sure why we need a motion to decide not to make a motion. Motion 4 is not critical and I see no reason to make a quick judgement call on that, especially when it has far reaching affects that we should seriously consider/discuss. I don't support making an exception for this one. For motion 2, I know we are already past the date that the Board has asked for a response, but we are getting into the Holiday season and I doubt much attention would be would be given to the STI proposal until after the New Year even if we approve/accept it this week. Also, is it appropriate to vote on it until it is complete with the minority reports added? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 8:27 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Strephane, We did not receive the Issues Report for motion 3 until Friday, 11 December, which was after the deadline for documents, a different Council Procedures requirement. I should have made that more clear. This discussion brings something else to mind that would be good to do going forward: We should make sure that the dates motions are submitted are always shown with the motions on the wiki and anywhere else they are posted. In checking the motions for this week's meeting, I see that we do that in some cases and not others. Glen - In the future, I suggest that we make it a practice to always show the date a motion was made after the name of the person who made the motion. Chuck From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:13 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting Thanks Chuck, I don't understand why that requirement applies to motion 3, which you made on Dec 4, therefore well inside the 8-day requirement by my count. On motion 2, I am in the same boat as you (overwhelmed by emails) and cannot find the original motion proposal (which I take it was made by staff, since it is not even moved yet). Do you have a record of what date that was? Thanks, Stéphane Le 14 déc. 2009 à 15:02, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : Thanks for the correction Stephane. Not sure how I missed your second of motion 3. Regarding the Council Operating Procedures requirement that motions should be submitted 8 days prior to a Council meeting, that requirement would apply to motion 2, motion 3 and motion 4. In all three cases the Coucil would need to agree to an exception to the procedures requirement or we will have to delay action on all three topics. Chuck From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:43 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting Hi Chuck, Your description is incorrect. I had seconded motion 3 on December 6. Further, it is my assessment of the 8 day notice requirement set out by article 3.3 of the GNSO operating rules and procedures that motion 4, proposed by Wolf on Dec 13, cannot be submitted for our Dec 17 meeting. I am happy to be corrected if this assessment is wrong. Thanks, Stéphane Le 13 déc. 2009 à 14:22, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : For our 17 Dec Council meeting, the following four motions listed below with their status are posted at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions) + Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09) - moved & seconded + Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team - needs to be moved and seconded + Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical Integration PDP - needs to be seconded + Proposed Motion on Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting - needs to be seconded At this point, only motion 1 above is ready for action. So we need someone to make motion 2 and, if that happens, we will need a second. We also need seconds on motions 3 & 4. Chuck

1 0

AGP Limits Policy - Implementation Report
by Craig Schwartz Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

Dear Councilors, Please find attached the second AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report. This report provides a status update on the implementation of the Policy since it was announced to the community on 17 December 2008. As always, please let me know if you have any questions about this information. Best, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

2 1

GNSO Improvements budget
by Denise Michel Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

Dear Council Members, The budget allocation approved for GNSO Improvements implementation for this fiscal year (July 2009 - June 2010) totals US$225,000. This amount is based on revenue and expense forecasts and is subject to change. It includes an estimated $200,000 for professional services/project consultants, and $25,000 for IT tools and related support. It does not include the cost of full time Staff and overhead expenses, nor "infrastructure/support" expenses (e.g. conference calls, meeting space, translations). The budget allocation is expected to support the following efforts: - Create and implement Working Groups and PDP structure as directed by ICANN Board - Develop information and curriculum for GNSO community and leadership to improve understanding and develop future leaders - Design and implement new website and other communication tools and materials to improve information sharing, collaboration, participation - Create constituency tools (tool kit) to support consistent services for all Constituencies - Develop a plan for membership management and document management systems Approximate expenditures to date include: - $108,000 professional services - $ 3000 IT/materials costs Please let me know if you have questions. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct

2 1

Status Updates to review before GNSO Council meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting on Thursday, 17 December at 15:00 UTC., please review the written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups and Work Teams http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-17dec09-en.htm in the Council agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-17dec09-en.htm Item 6: Status updates 6.5 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.? 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

ICANN Weekly Newsletter
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 14, 2009

Dec. 14, 2009

ICANN Weekly Newsletter News from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> Week ending 11 December 2009 ________________________________ Announcements This Week ICANN Signs Two Historic Agreements with UN Agencies<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-11dec09-en.htm> ICANN and the Swiss-based Universal Postal Union (UPU) have signed a historic agreement giving the UPU managing authority over .post as a top-level domain. In addition to the UPU-ICANN contract, ICANN also entered into another important agreement the day before in Paris with another U.N. entity, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 11 December 2009 ICANN Continues Reporting on the Selection Process of Independent Evaluators for the New gTLD Program<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11dec09-en.htm> Phase one of the selection process (e.g., general criteria scoring grid) has been completed and each candidate is being notified of their status and next steps. 11 December 2009 ICANN Welcomes 100th Member to the Country Code Names Supporting Organization<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08dec09-en.htm> On 3 December, ICANN's Country Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) welcomed the Centro de Informatica da Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, operator of the country code .MZ (Mozambique), as its 100th member. 8 December 2009 Announcement Regarding Implementation of Modification to Implementation Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07dec09-en.htm> On 30 October 2009, the ICANN Board approved a modification to the Implementation Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). The modified Rules now require UDRP claimants and respondents to provide documents to UDRP Providers in electronic form. The modified Rules also change UDRP Provider obligations in forwarding hard copy notice to respondents in UDRP proceedings. 7 December 2009 ________________________________ Upcoming Events [cid:~WRD001.jpg]<http://nbo.icann.org/>7 - 12 March 2010: 37th International Public ICANN Meeting - Nairobi, Kenya<http://nbo.icann.org/> 20 - 25 June 2010: 38th International Public ICANN Meeting - Brussels, Belgium About ICANN ICANN Bylaws<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm> Our bylaws are very important to us. They capture our mission of security, stability and accessibility, and compel the organization to be open and transparent. Learn more at www.ICANN.org<http://www.icann.org/>. Strategic Plan, July 2007 - June 2010<http://www.icann.org/en/planning/> Adopted FY10 Operating Plan and Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/financials/budget-opplan.htm> [PDF, 1,470K] ________________________________ Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine<http://www.icann.org/en/magazine/>

1 0

FW: [gnso-sti] The S in STI and ALAC minority position
by Margie Milam Dec. 14, 2009

Dec. 14, 2009

Dear All, Please find an email below from Alan Greenberg regarding the status of the At-Large Minority Report. I will be updating the STI Report shortly with the additional minority reports received, but thought it would be useful to you to refer to this in the interim as you prepare for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday. Best Regards, Margie ____________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ____________ -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-sti(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:42 AM To: gnso sti Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] The S in STI and ALAC minority position Attached is the ALAC minority position in both WORD and PDF formats. Support for the report and the minority statement is being voted on now and we will have the results by the time of the GNSO meeting this week. Alan At 14/12/2009 10:52 AM, Margie Milam wrote: >Dear All, > >Please let me know if there are any other updates to the minority >positions in the STI Report. I will be including the Business >Constituency report sent out by Mike Rodenbaugh last week, as well as >Alan's update below. > > >Best Regards, > >Margie > >_____________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >_____________ > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-gnso-sti(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On >Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 1:54 AM >To: gnso sti >Subject: [gnso-sti] The S in STI and ALAC minority position > > >The S seems to take on new meanings in every document. > >The GNSO motion used Selected >The report uses Special >The BC uses Specific > >Perhaps we can converge on SPLENDID! > >The ALAC will be voting on our minority position over the next three >days. There will only be three, so please remove the notation of one on >URS 2.1. I will forward a copy later on Monday. > >Thanks, Alan

1 0

RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 14, 2009

Dec. 14, 2009

For motion 3 it makes sense to make an exception and delay a vote the PDP. We just received the Issues Report so it seems premature to be voting on a PDP, or at least to do it well informed. On the other hand, not sure why we need a motion to decide not to make a motion. Motion 4 is not critical and I see no reason to make a quick judgement call on that, especially when it has far reaching affects that we should seriously consider/discuss. I don't support making an exception for this one. For motion 2, I know we are already past the date that the Board has asked for a response, but we are getting into the Holiday season and I doubt much attention would be would be given to the STI proposal until after the New Year even if we approve/accept it this week. Also, is it appropriate to vote on it until it is complete with the minority reports added? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 8:27 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Strephane, We did not receive the Issues Report for motion 3 until Friday, 11 December, which was after the deadline for documents, a different Council Procedures requirement. I should have made that more clear. This discussion brings something else to mind that would be good to do going forward: We should make sure that the dates motions are submitted are always shown with the motions on the wiki and anywhere else they are posted. In checking the motions for this week's meeting, I see that we do that in some cases and not others. Glen - In the future, I suggest that we make it a practice to always show the date a motion was made after the name of the person who made the motion. Chuck From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:13 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting Thanks Chuck, I don't understand why that requirement applies to motion 3, which you made on Dec 4, therefore well inside the 8-day requirement by my count. On motion 2, I am in the same boat as you (overwhelmed by emails) and cannot find the original motion proposal (which I take it was made by staff, since it is not even moved yet). Do you have a record of what date that was? Thanks, Stéphane Le 14 déc. 2009 à 15:02, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : Thanks for the correction Stephane. Not sure how I missed your second of motion 3. Regarding the Council Operating Procedures requirement that motions should be submitted 8 days prior to a Council meeting, that requirement would apply to motion 2, motion 3 and motion 4. In all three cases the Coucil would need to agree to an exception to the procedures requirement or we will have to delay action on all three topics. Chuck From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:43 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting Hi Chuck, Your description is incorrect. I had seconded motion 3 on December 6. Further, it is my assessment of the 8 day notice requirement set out by article 3.3 of the GNSO operating rules and procedures that motion 4, proposed by Wolf on Dec 13, cannot be submitted for our Dec 17 meeting. I am happy to be corrected if this assessment is wrong. Thanks, Stéphane Le 13 déc. 2009 à 14:22, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : For our 17 Dec Council meeting, the following four motions listed below with their status are posted at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions) + Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09) - moved & seconded + Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team - needs to be moved and seconded + Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical Integration PDP - needs to be seconded + Proposed Motion on Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting - needs to be seconded At this point, only motion 1 above is ready for action. So we need someone to make motion 2 and, if that happens, we will need a second. We also need seconds on motions 3 & 4. Chuck

3 2