December 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Constituency/Stakeholder Group Updates for 17 December 2009
by Zahid Jamil 17 Dec '09

17 Dec '09

Have been disconnected Glen - can i get a call back Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO Secretariat Sent: 17 December 2009 20:09 To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Constituency/Stakeholder Group Updates for 17 December 2009 Importance: High Dear Councillors, Attached please find the Constituency/Stakeholder Group Update Report For 17 December GNSO Council Meeting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

IDN related groups updates
by Edmon Chung 17 Dec '09

17 Dec '09

Apologies these are coming a bit late: JIG - ccNSO in the process of appointing co-chair - Some discussions being started on mailing list - Identified IDN TLD acceptance as a potential item of common interest - kick off discussion between co-chairs and chairs of GNSO/ccNSO planned IRD - Bi-weekly phone conference being established - Co-chairs identified: Myself from GNSO, Jeremy Hitchcock from SSAC - Continuing from staff initial study - Context of other WHOIS studies along with IRD being considered (i.e. what should be done by this group versus other items) - Schedule and scope of work to be laid out IDNG - Conference calls conducted and planed - Identified a potential item for council discussion: acceptance and process for application of a confusingly similar TLD string - Will redraft potential special IDN gTLD track WG for consideration Edmon

1 0

ALAC vote on support of STI Report and At-Large Minority Statement
by Alan Greenberg 17 Dec '09

17 Dec '09

The vote has now closed and the vote has passed with all members voting unanimously to support the motion. Alan

1 0

Constituency/Stakeholder Group Updates for 17 December 2009
by GNSO Secretariat 17 Dec '09

17 Dec '09

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the Constituency/Stakeholder Group Update Report For 17 December GNSO Council Meeting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Amended Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team
by Gomes, Chuck 17 Dec '09

17 Dec '09

After discussion with several people, in anticipation of possible action in our Council meeting tomorrow, I made some changes to the previously distributed and posted draft motion regarding the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team. To make it easy to see the changes I made, I attached a redline version. I also copied the amended motion below. Note that we still need someone to make this motion or another one and then someone to second it. Because the motion has not been formally made, there does not appear to be a need to ask whether my proposed amendments are friendly. Clearly, anyone who makes a motion may rewrite it however they like. The purpose of providing a draft motion was to facilitate the process. Glen - please post the amended motion in front of the original motion. Chuck Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter ( http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-e n.pdf ) to the GNSO requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program; Whereas, in response to the Board's letter, on 28 October 2009 the GNSO created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the specific rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion into the Draft Applicant Guidebook; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report (link: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/) to the GNSO Council describing an alternative proposal to address trademark concerns in the New gTLD Program that was supported by a consensus of its members; Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the STI Report, and the minority reports included therein, and desires to approve the alternative proposal recommended by the STI review team; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the STI review team in developing the STI alternative proposal on an expedited basis; RESOLVED, that the GNSO hereby approves the overall package of recommendations contained in the STI Report, and resolves that the STI proposal to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure as described in the STI Report is a more effective and implementable solution than the Staff proposal described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 and its accompanying memoranda; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to forward the recommendations to the Board in response to its 12 October 2009 letter ( http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-e n.pdf) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a forty-five (45) day public comment period to allow the ICANN community to comment on the STI recommendations prior to finalization of the model to be included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

4 3

GNSO COuncil updated agenda
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Dec '09

16 Dec '09

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday at 15:00 UTC, please note the updated agenda on the Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_17_december_2009 and the agenda posted on the website at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-17dec09-en.htm The updates are as follows: Item 3: The STI Final Report has been Updated with Minority Reports http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf Item 6: Status updates Under 6.1 Board update a link has been added to the Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm Under 6.2 New gTLD Implementation Process Update (Kurt Pritz) Additional steps have been added: 6.2.1 Overarching Issues 6.2.2 Next steps 6.2.3 Timeline 6.2.4 The IDN Implementation Working Team Final Report (insert link) http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-implementation-working-team-re… recommends that the GNSO & ccNSO do policy work with regard to the following two issues related to single-character IDN top level names: 1) selection of scripts for which single character IDN TLDs should be allowed; 2) method for allocation of single character IDN TLDs. This item will be discussed in the 7 Jan 2010 meeting. 6.5 A link is provided to the Status updates <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-17dec09-en.htm> The updates that appear in 'blue' are those received after the deadline of 10 December 2009 AOB 7.3 - this has been added: Councilors are asked to forward the AGP Limits Policy - Implementation Report http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-14dec09-en.pdf to their groups and be prepared to discuss it in the 7 January 2010 meeting 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

Preliminary Report of ICANN Board Meeting 9 Dec 2010
by Bruce Tonkin 16 Dec '09

16 Dec '09

Hello All, See below for preliminary report on the ICANN Board meeting held last week. Key issues of interest to the GNSO are: - approval of the Verisign partial bulk transfer process for .com and .net - in principle support for an expression of interest phase for new gTLDs and to move forward to get public comment on the analysis done so far on the public comments and a proposed model for consideration "Resolved, (2009.12.09.05), ICANN staff is hereby directed to record and publish for public comment the risks and considerations considered by the board and the ICANN Board's determinations on the EOI process model. Staff is also directed to continue undertaking additional analysis on those determinations. Resolved, (2009.12.09.06), ICANN staff shall summarize: a) the public comments resulting from the publication of the risks and considerations considered by the board, b) ICANN Board's determinations on the EOI process model, and c) the additional staff analysis undertaken; and present that summary to the ICANN Board. Further, along with that summary ICANN staff shall present a proposed EOI process model for approval at the ICANN Board's February 2010 meeting. " - the Board determined that the CyberSafety Constituency (CSC), the City TLD Constituency, and IDNgTLD Constituency did not meet the requirements for a new constituency in the GNSO. No determination was made on the Consumer Constituency yet. - the Board approved the re-delegation of .co to a new ccTLD manager: .CO Internet S.A.S. - the Board approved the .POST sponsorship agreement Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting 9 December 2009 [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] Note: This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but does provide a preliminary attempt setting forth the unapproved reporting of the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Board's Minutes, when approved by the board at a future meeting. A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference 9 December 2009 @ 20.00 UTC. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush promptly called the meeting to order. In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Dennis Jennings (Vice Chairman), Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Raimundo Beca, Steve Crocker, Gonzalo Navarro, Rita Rodin Johnston, Raymond A. Plzak, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, and Katim Touray. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Jonne Soininen, TLG Liaison; and Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Liaison. Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison, Rajasekhar Ramaraj and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison, sent apologies. This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 9 December 2009. A. Consent Agenda ================== =================== 1. With Board Finance Committee Approval - Payment of Jones Day Invoices ======================================================================== = RESOLVED (2009.12.09.01) that the President and Chief Executive Officer is authorized to direct the Chief Financial Officer to pay Jones Day invoices for services provided in September 2009. 2. Amendment for Partial Bulk Transfer in dot-COM and dot-NET =============================================================== Whereas, VeriSign has submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the dot-COM and dot-NET Registry Agreements to offer partial bulk transfer (also known as Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition or BTAPPA). Whereas, the ICANN Board previously approved a similar BTAPPA service requested by Neustar for the dot-BIZ gTLD in November 2006. Whereas, ICANN has evaluated the proposed amendments to the dot-COM and dot-NET Registry Agreements as new registry services pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and has posted amendments for public comment and Board approval ( http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/ ). It is hereby RESOLVED (2009.12.09.02) that the amendments to Appendix 7 in the dot-COM and dot-NET Registry Agreements are approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendments. 3. From the Security & Stability Advisory Committee - Thank You to Rajasekhar Ramaraj for his service on SSAC ======================================================================== ======== Whereas, Rajasekhar Ramaraj was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 2 November 2007, Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Rajasekhar Ramaraj for his service to the Internet community by membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. It is RESOLVED (2009.12.09.03), that Rajasekhar Ramaraj has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his service to ICANN by his membership on the SSAC, and that the Board wishes Ramaraj well in all future endeavors. Resolutions 2009.12.09.01; 2009.12.09.02; and 2009.12.09.03 were approved in a single vote approving the consent agenda items. All Board Members present unanimously approved these resolutions. B. Regular Agenda ================= ================= 1. [With Board Finance Committee Approval] - Approval of Lease for Washington D.C. Office Space ======================================================================== ============ The Board received a request for discussion of ICANN's global presence at the next meeting of the Board of Directors to address further expansion of office locations outside of the United States. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, ICANN has a need for office space in Washington, DC to meet needs for current and future staff; including the Vice President of Government Affairs, Whereas, ICANN has an organization benefit in maintaining a geographic presence in a leading center of government and in geographic proximity of major registry and registrar operators, Whereas, future ICANN staff growth is likely to be outside of the existing offices in Marina del Rey, CA and likely to increase in other parts of the U.S. and the World; It is hereby RESOLVED (2009.12.09.04) that the ICANN Board authorize either the Chief Operating Officer or the Chief Financial Officer to negotiate and finalize a lease for office space in Washington, DC on commercially reasonable terms, for approximately 6,000 square feet of space, not to exceed a ten year term, and for total occupancy costs to start out at less than $400,000 per year, and not to exceed $600,000 per year during the lease term. One Board member abstained from voting on this resolution. All remaining Board members in attendance approved of this resolution. The resolution passed. 2. President's Report ==================== The Board received a report from the President regarding ICANN's recent work, activities and achievements, including efforts on strengthening ICANN's global relationships. 3. Affirmation of Commitment Reviews ===================================== The Board received a report from staff regarding ICANN's planning work underway to facilitate the identification of review teams and commencement of the community-based reviews identified within the Affirmations document. The Board discussed additional items that should be considered, and stressed the community nature of the reviews. 4. Plan for Expressions of Interest ================================== The Board received a presentation from staff outlining the work done in response to the Board's resolution passed in Seoul directing staff to provide a plan for Board consideration regarding a call for "expressions of interest" in the New gTLD program. The Board then discussed the proposed plan and took the following action: Whereas the ICANN Board has passed a resolution in Seoul directing ICANN staff to study the potential impact of a call for formal "expressions of interest", and provide a plan for Board consideration in December 2009, including possible options and a risk analysis relating to a proposed action; Whereas ICANN staff has presented an analysis of the potential benefits of an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process, and has developed a preliminary EOI process model for ICANN Board discussion; Whereas the board discussion has resulted in some preliminary determinations pending formalizing the EOI process model and obtaining public comment on those determinations; Resolved, (2009.12.09.05), ICANN staff is hereby directed to record and publish for public comment the risks and considerations considered by the board and the ICANN Board's determinations on the EOI process model. Staff is also directed to continue undertaking additional analysis on those determinations. Resolved, (2009.12.09.06), ICANN staff shall summarize: a) the public comments resulting from the publication of the risks and considerations considered by the board, b) ICANN Board's determinations on the EOI process model, and c) the additional staff analysis undertaken; and present that summary to the ICANN Board. Further, along with that summary ICANN staff shall present a proposed EOI process model for approval at the ICANN Board's February 2010 meeting. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of the resolutions 5. Updated Project Plan on New gTLDs ==================================== The Board received an update from staff regarding assumptions and interdepedencies affecting the project planning for New gTLDs and provided further guidance and input. 6. New GNSO Constituency Applications ===================================== The Board discussed the fact that work was continuing on one of the four new GNSO Constituency Applications. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, The Board has received four formal petitions for the creation of four new GNSO Constituencies, the first formal requests for new GNSO constituencies in a decade; Whereas, Each petition has been subjected to a two-phase, public process that was instituted as part of the GNSO Improvements effort, and Public Comment Forums for all four petitions have concluded; It is RESOLVED (2009.12.09.07) that: 1. The Board is pleased with the response of the community in organizing these four prospective new Constituencies and in completing the various notifications, petitions, and charter documents designed to formally seek Board recognition and approval; 2. The Board thanks and acknowledges the work of the four Constituency proponents for their perseverance and dedication in attempting to further the evolution and representativeness of the GNSO; 3. The Board appreciates the work done by proponents of the CyberSafety Constituency (CSC), including its most recent response to various Board member and community questions and concerns. The Board, after careful reconsideration, has determined that this petition does not satisfy the standards for a new GNSO Constituency established by the Board; thus, the petition is not approved. Those individuals, groups, and organizations who have been involved with the CyberSafety proposal are encouraged to remain active within ICANN and, where applicable, seek to join other approved Constituencies. 4. The Board appreciates the work done by proponents of the City TLD Constituency; however, that petition is not approved on the basis that the Registries SG will be organized as a grouping of individually contracted Registries rather than as a grouping of Constituencies; as such, each City will be eligible to join the RySG once it signs a formal ICANN contract as a registry operator. In the interim, the proposed RySG Charter provides for "observer" status for any City TLD proponent interested in becoming an ICANN gTLD Registry. 5. The IDNgTLD Constituency petition, as presently formulated does not appear to be focused enough to be eligible for any single Stakeholder Group, is not comprised solely of non-governmental entities, and apparently is not focused on gTLD policies beyond non-Latin script IDNs. The Board acknowledges and thanks the IDNgTLD Constituency petitioners for their interest and effort, and welcomes further input on the structural and membership concerns raised. One Board member abstained from voting on this resolution. All remaining Board members in attendance approved of this resolution. The resolution passed. 7. Update on IDN FastTrack Applications ====================================== In the interest of time, the Chairman directed staff to provide an update via email. 8. Update on Strategic Plan ========================== In the interest of time, the Chairman deferred an update and reminded the Board to provide input as requested into the Strategic Planning Process. 9. Reforecast of FY10 Budget =========================== The Board received a short update from staff regarding budget reforecasting activities and provided suggestions of additional information that could be of use in a Board review. 10. Redelegation of .CO ======================== The Board took the following action: Whereas, "CO" is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Colombia; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .CO to .CO Internet S.A.S.; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. It is hereby RESOLVED (2009.12.09.08), that the proposed redelegation of the .CO domain to .CO Internet S.A.S. is approved. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. The Chairman of the Board expressed his thanks to all working in the IANA Functions department for their work on this matter. 11. Any Other Business ======================== a. .POST Sponsorship Agreement The Board took the following action, following on from the recently closed public comment period: Whereas, the Universal Postal Union (UPU) applied for the .POST sponsored top-level domain in 2004 during the application round for sponsored new gTLDs; Whereas, ICANN and the UPU conducted extensive, time consuming and challenging negotiations to overcome a number of contracting issues unique to the UPU as a result of its status as an intergovernmental organization and specialized agency of the United Nations; Whereas, ICANN and the UPU concluded their negotiation with an agreement in principle in October 2009; Whereas, the proposed .POST Sponsorship Agreement was posted for public comment on 2 November 2009, and two comments were received, and both were reviewed with the board; It is hereby RESOLVED (2009.12.09.09) that the .POST Sponsorship Agreement is approved, and the President and CEO is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. The President expressed his thanks for the work on this item. b. Other The Board requested staff to provide an update on the review of economic studies. C.Executive Session ==================== ==================== The Board conducted an executive session, without staff present, in confidence, and all resolutions passed in the executive session, were held confidentially. The board meeting was adjourned at 23.14 UTC.

1 0

RE: [council] STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports
by Margie Milam 15 Dec '09

15 Dec '09

Dear All, Please find attached the STI Final Report, with an updated Trademark Clearinghouse, Section 2.1, per Alan Greenberg's request below. Best Regards, Margie ____________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ___________ -----Original Message----- From: Margie Milam Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:06 PM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; GNSO Council; gnso sti Subject: RE: [council] STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports Alan, Yes, I will update Section 2.1 and will resend to the Council shortly. Best, Margie __________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN __________ -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:50 PM To: GNSO Council; gnso sti Subject: Re: [council] STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports Margie, could you please delete the reference to an At-Large Minority Position in Clearinghouse 2.1. Thanks, Alan At 15/12/2009 01:58 PM, Margie Milam wrote: >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

Re: [council] STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports
by Alan Greenberg 15 Dec '09

15 Dec '09

Margie, could you please delete the reference to an At-Large Minority Position in Clearinghouse 2.1. Thanks, Alan At 15/12/2009 01:58 PM, Margie Milam wrote: >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 >______________ > >

2 1

RE: [council] Motions for 17 Dec Council Meeting
by Alan Greenberg 15 Dec '09

15 Dec '09

The ALAC minority report was submitted to Margie on Monday and was forwarded to the Council soon after, so you all should have received it then. It was resent to the Council today, embedded within the STI report (page 37-39). Our vote formally closes just prior to the GNSO meeting, but based on the votes so far, the motion to support the report and the minority statements has already passed. Given the level of work (not to mention good will) that went into getting out the report and the minority statements, I think that it would be a real pity if the GNSO does not vote at Thursday's meeting. It would certainly send a bad message to those who may be asked to participate in such Herculean efforts next time. Alan At 15/12/2009 10:34 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >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: StÃ©phane_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, > > >StÃ©phane > >Le 14 dÃ©c. 2009 Ã 18:06, Mary Wong a Ã©crit : > >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: StÃ©phane_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: StÃ©phane 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, > > >StÃ©phane > >Le 14 dÃ©c. 2009 Ã 15:02, Gomes, Chuck a Ã©crit : > >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: StÃ©phane 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, > > >StÃ©phane > >Le 13 dÃ©c. 2009 Ã 14:22, Gomes, Chuck a Ã©crit : > >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