February 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] RAA Amendments
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 24, 2009

Feb. 24, 2009

Dan, First, the GNSO Council is not responsible for interpreting our agreement, nor should they waste time engaging in that exercise. Our understanding of the agreement is that Registrar's are obligated to comply with new/revised specifications and policies ONLY if they are established in the manner described in Subsection 4.3 AND ONLY in cases where: 1. The Agreement *expressly provides for it* (see 3.3.4, 3.3.8, 3.7.5, 3.7.8 for examples) OR 2. The specification or policy *concerns one or more topics described in Subsection 4.2.* So, if the topic of any proposed specficition or policy is not included in 4.2 or *expressly* provided for elsewhere in the agreement then it is not in scope for consensus policy that Registrars MUST comply with. That's the picket fence. Dan, if this is not the case then Registrars have been operating under misconceptions that Staff and Board have clearly supported as truths since 2001. Mike's interpretation clearly serves his constituency's specific agenda as is to be expected. But I ask that you and John reconfirm the interpretation we have been working under so we can put this rest and get on with more productive efforts. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Amendments From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Tue, February 24, 2009 1:55 am To: "'Daniel Halloran'" <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dan, I interpret this differently. The actual text, with my comments in brackets: Sec. 4.1 4.1 Registrar's Ongoing Obligation to Comply With New or Revised Specifications and Policies. During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar shall comply with the terms of this Agreement on the schedule set forth in Subsection 4.4, with 4.1.1 new or revised specifications (including forms of agreement to which Registrar is a party) and policies established by ICANN as Consensus Policies in the manner described in Subsection 4.3, 4.1.2 in cases where: 4.1.2.1 this Agreement expressly provides for compliance with revised specifications or policies established in the manner set forth in one or more subsections of this Section 4; or 4.1.2.2 the specification or policy concerns one or more topics described in Subsection 4.2. [So I interpret this to plainly mean: Registrar shall comply with ... 4.1.2.1 ... revised specifications or policies established in the manner set forth in . . .] 4.3 Manner of Establishment of New and Revised Specifications and Policies. 4.3.1 "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (a) action of the ICANN Board of Directors establishing the specification or policy, (b) a recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is delegated, that the specification or policy should be established, and (c) a written report and supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy. 4.3.2 In the event that Registrar disputes the presence of such a consensus, it shall seek review of that issue from an Independent Review Panel established under ICANN's bylaws. ... [You guys seem to ignore the word "or" between 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.2, and the words "one or more" in 4.1.2.1 -- and your interpretation would leave no reason for 4.1.2.1 at all. Section 4.2 does not create any 'picket fence' as it says "may" (not "solely", "only", "limited to" or any such language), and indeed reinforces the above text in its final sentence...] 4.2 Topics for New and Revised Specifications and Policies. New and revised specifications and policies may be established on the following topics: . . . Nothing in this Subsection 4.2 shall limit Registrar's obligations as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. [The quote you cite from the GC's Briefing in 2002 just makes the point even further, that any resolution that is achieved through Consensus Policy process is contractually defined by Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.3, and therefore within scope. Nothing in section 4.2 limits the meaning of section 4.3, which is unlimited in scope so long as the process is followed. I guess at very least, this ought to get clarified by amendment to the RAA, while we're doing that otherwise?] Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Halloran Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:32 AM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RAA Amendments Mike, Thank you for your inquiry. Both John Jeffrey and I consulted with Kurt and his team before he sent his note, and we agree with the content. I'm not sure I understand your reading of Section 4 of the RAA. Subsection 4.1 <http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#4.1> provides that registrars are obligated to comply with new "Consensus Policies" only if (1) the policies are established according to the procedure set forth in subsection 4.3, and (2) the policies are either (4.1.2.1) on one of the topics expressly specified in the agreement or (4.1.2.2) on the list of topics specified in subsection 4.2 (which has been nicknamed the "picket fence"). I believe this interpretation of Section 4 has been consistent over the years; please see for example the October 2002 "General Counsel's Briefing Concerning Implementation of Policies by Registrars and Registry Operators" http://www.icann.org/legal/briefing-on-implementation-20oct02.htm, which stated that "In the consensus-policy provisions of ICANN's existing agreements, registrars and registry operators have agreed to implement policies developed after those agreements are signed only when: 1. The policies are on a topic that is contractually defined as being appropriate for establishment by ICANN S" If you do not agree with the categorization in Kurt's note of which topics are inside and outside the picket fence, that could be a subject for further review and discussion  as Kurt's note indicated he was only conveying an "initial review." To clarify the two particular issues you raised, I don't think Kurt said that Consensus Policies could not include enforcement provisions -- that's different though from a hypothetical stand-alone modification to the RAA's notice requirements, which we think would be outside of the picket fence. Similarly, we see a difference between proposed new requirements for domains registered by registrars for the purpose of providing registrar services versus an outright prohibition on warehousing (which would be within the picket fence). I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to let me know if you have any further questions or if I can be of any other assistance. Best regards, Daniel Halloran Deputy General Counsel ICANN > From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > Reply-To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:34:48 -0800 > To: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Amendments > > > > Thanks Kurt. You are interpreting the RAA in a very narrow and > unprecedented way, as Section 4.2 simply says "policies may be > established on the following topics..." It does not preclude policy on any other topic. > Has ICANN Counsel created this interpretation, or is it simply yours? > > Moreover, are these your personal opinions as to what falls within and > outside the 'picket fence' that you have now attempted to create? Are > they ICANN Counsel's opinions? Who is it ultimately that would make > those determinations (if we accepted for the moment that such > determinations must be made)? Surely the GNSO Council's collective > opinion on any such determination ought to be at least as important as > ICANN Staff's, and very well might differ. > > In particular, it appears illogical to say that the Council can > develop policy on substantive issues, but cannot develop policy to > enforce the resulting rules (via notifications to registrars, > auditing, sanctions/suspension, etc.). > > Also I do not comprehend your attempted distinction between 'policy > relating to warehousing' and policy 'requiring registrars to comply > with all RAA and consensus policy requirements for names registered by the registrar'. > > Regardless of these concerns, I hope the Council will approve the path > forward that I have suggested, so that we can reach consensus as to a > package of amendments that can be implemented on a compulsory basis as > soon as possible. That motion is on the table for Mexico City, so > hopefully Staff will give us its views on that motion as soon as > possible, as well as further responses to my specific questions above. > > Thanks, > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:39 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] RAA Amendments > > > Dear All: > > In follow up to my earlier comments and in response to some of the > subsequent discussion by the Council, I thought it might be helpful to > clarify the options available to ICANN in modifying registrar > obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). My > earlier comments indicated that two paths were considered to > incorporate amendments into the RAA. > > There are, of course, three ways by which registrar obligations under > the RAA can be modified: > > The first option, which is described in the RAA, requires a report, > approval by a two-thirds majority of the GNSO, and ICANN Board action. > As indicated previously, a new form of RAA adopted based on a > two-thirds¹ vote of the Council would take effect upon expiration of each registrar¹s five-year RAA. > With over 70% of all registrars' RAAs expiring between 1 June 2009 and > 31 May 2011, the result would have been substantial (compulsory) > adoption of the new RAA and significantly improved availability of > compliance enforcement tools for most registrars. The proposed > amendments did not receive the requisite two-thirds vote for approval. > Staff will continue to engage the GNSO membership to address > outstanding concerns raised in the process, to determine whether RAA > amendment through this path may still be viable. > > The second option for amending the RAA requires Board approval and the > voluntary adoption of a revised RAA by registrars. It is anticipated > that some forms of incentive would be required to encourage adoption > as I previously described. > > The third option is the GNSO policy development process that has the > ability to modify the terms under which ICANN-accredited registrars do > business through the policy development process. In particular, the > RAA (at section > 4.2: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#4.2) > allows for the establishment and revision of policies and > specifications in the following areas: > > 4.2.1 issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably > necessary to facilitate interoperability, technical reliability, > and/or operational stability of Registrar Services, Registry Services, > the DNS, or the Internet; > > 4.2.2 registrar policies reasonably necessary to implement ICANN > policies or specifications relating to a DNS registry or to Registry > Services; > > 4.2.3 resolution of disputes concerning the registration of Registered > Names (as opposed to the use of such domain names), including where > the policies take into account use of the domain names; > > 4.2.4 principles for allocation of Registered Names (e.g., > first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after > expiration); > > 4.2.5 prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by > registries or registrars; > > 4.2.6 maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date contact > information regarding Registered Names and nameservers; > > 4.2.7 reservation of Registered Names that may not be registered > initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related > to (a) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (b) > intellectual property, or (c) the technical management of the DNS or > the Internet (e.g., "example.com" and names with single-letter/digit > labels); > > 4.2.8 procedures to avoid disruptions of registration due to > suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a > registrar, including allocation of responsibility among continuing > registrars of the Registered Names sponsored in a TLD by a registrar > losing accreditation; and > > 4.2.9 the transfer of registration data upon a change in registrar > sponsoring one or more Registered Names. > > These topics mark the boundaries of the "picket fence" within which > policy development under the current RAA is possible. (A two-thirds > GNSO majority would still be required in order for such policies to be > enforceable against registrars, as is the case with the RAA amendment > process.) > > The current set of proposed amendments, reached through community > consultation and negotiation with registrars, would reach several > areas that are not ordinarily subject to policy development within the picket fence. > Please keep in mind that we are not evaluating the specific > amendments, just the realm of potential policy development, and also > that our analysis may not have taken all factors into account. In > other words, the determination of what's inside the picket fence could > conceivably result in a different answer under different circumstances. > > The following topics that were included in the original package of > amendments sent to the GNSO do appear to fall within the picket fence > of potential new obligations that could be imposed on registrars via > Consensus > Policies: > > · Escrow of Whois Privacy/Proxy Customer Data > > · Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Document > > · Registrar Contractual Relationships with Resellers (where the > substantive topic lies within the picket fence) > > · Disclosure of Registration Licensee Contact Information > > · Registrar Disclosure of Its Own Contact Information > > · Operator Skills Training & Testing > > · Modification of Data Retention Requirements > > Based on our initial review, the following topics that were included > in the original package of amendments sent to the GNSO appear to fall > outside the picket fence, and therefore could not be imposed on > registrars via Consensus > Policies: > > · Registrar Auditing > > · Graduated Sanctions & Accreditation Suspension > > · Registrar Group Liability > > · Registrar Fees > > · Registrations by Registrars (the picket fence allows for policy > development related to warehousing of domains by registrars, but the > topic addressed by the proposed amendment - requiring registrars to > comply with all RAA and consensus policy requirements for names > registered by the registrar for registrar business use - would not be > enforceable as a Consensus Policy under the RAA) > > · Modification of Arbitration Rights > > · Accreditation by Purchase > > · Use of ICANN-Accredited Registrars (is a topic appropriate for policy > development by the GNSO, but it would not be enforceable through the > RAA as a "Consensus Policy") > > · Streamlined Requirements for Registrar Notification of New and > Revised Consensus Policies > > · Removal of References to U.S. Department of Commerce > > It is our expectation that the GNSO will continue to evaluate the need > for and undertake policy development within the picket fence that > would be applicable to all registrars. Nevertheless, we still see > strong value to registrants and the greater Internet community in the > proposed amendments, even if they cannot be uniformly applied at this > time. In the event a system of incentives is implemented to encourage > voluntary adoption by registrars, we will, of course, consult with the > GNSO and its member-constituencies as we have throughout this process, > to solicit input with regard to the most beneficial and meaningful > ways and tools to encourage registrar cooperation. > > I hope this information is helpful and clear. I will answer what > questions I can and get answers to others. > > Regards, > > Kurt > > Kurt Pritz > ICANN > > 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > +1-310-301-5809 (office) > +1-310-400-4184 (mobile) > > > >

1 0

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting to be held in Mexico City on 6 March 2009
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 24, 2009

Feb. 24, 2009

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/ 6 March 2009 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors - Mexico City - Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Update on GNSO Improvements a GNSO Improvements Overview Update/Status Report -- b Individual Users in the GNSO c GNSO Constituency Renewals 3 Proposed Global Policy for Remaining IPv4 Address 4. Location of the First 2010 ICANN Meeting in Africa 5. Update IDN ccTLD Fast Track 6. Update on New gTLDs 7. Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendment Updates - for information 8. Geographic Regions Working Group Update/Status Report - For information 9. Approval of Charters of ICANN Board Committees 10. Approval of Ombudsman 11. ICANN Board Terms 12. Board Response to Discussions arising from Mexico City Meeting 13. Other Business

2 1

RE: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments
by Avri Doria Feb. 24, 2009

Feb. 24, 2009

Hi, This wording changes does help clarify the situation for me. thanks a. On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 12:46 -0800, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Yes, that is my assumption. How about this clause to replace the one you > copy below? > > Whereas, the Council seeks to determine which of the proposed amendments > (agreed between ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency) are > non-contentious, and then consider next steps as to those non-contentious, > proposed amendments. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > Rodenbaugh Law > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > www.rodenbaugh.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 3:14 AM > To: 'Council GNSO' > Subject: Re: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments > > > Mike, > > I am wondering, to what extent this is true: > > > > Whereas, the Council wishes to approve the non-contentious, proposed > > amendments agreed between Staff and the Registrars Constituency as > > quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if > > approved then implement them as quickly as possible. > > I do not believe we have made a decision that we "wish to approve the > non-contentious ...". Would support of this motion in some sense imply > that this was the case? I do not believe that the whereas statement in > a motion should determine the future action of the council. If this is > what the council supports after all viewpoints have been heard, then we > should make such a decision specifically. It should also be noted, that > I do not believe that such a decision would have any binding effect on > the Board but would only serve as an advisory in their decision making > unless we initiated a PDP on issues deemed within the picket fence based > on the outcome of the WG and an ensuing issues report. > > My assumption is that this working group, if formed, would discuss the > four issues you have outlined and make a recommendation to council and > that this discussion, conclusions and recommendations would be then be > discussed in council. At that point, the council would need to decide > what it wished to do with those recommendations. > > Is that the same assumption you have? > > thanks > > a. > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments
by Avri Doria Feb. 23, 2009

Feb. 23, 2009

hi, Thank you. and you, of course, right about the wording change. a. On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 12:46 -0800, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > Thanks Avri. I consider all of these friendly amendments, but would go with > 'rough consensus of the Working Group' since the WG can't determine whether > anything would have super-majority support of Council. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > Rodenbaugh Law > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > www.rodenbaugh.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 11:14 PM > To: 'Council GNSO' > Subject: Re: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments > > > > Hi Mike, > > I would like to suggest 3 amendments, hopefully friendly, to this > motion: > > 1. In the third Whereas Statement: > > replace: Whereas, a majority of GNSO Council members have refused to > support the set of proposed amendments as drafted, but many of those > members support many of the proposed amendments. > > with: Whereas, the GNSO Council did not reach super-majority support > for the full set of proposed amendments as drafted though many members > support many of the proposed amendments. > > 2. In the RESOLVED section, replace the use of 'full consensus' with > either 'rough consensus' or 'super-majority support' > > 3. Add a line to the bottom of the motion stating: > > The working group established by this motion will work according to the > process defined in interim [working group process]. > > > Thanks > > a. > > > On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 18:18 -0800, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas, the RAA has not been amended since inception, and there is > > widespread community support for amendments to various provisions of > > the RAA. > > > > > > > > Whereas, the Registrars Constituency and ICANN Staff have agreed on a > > set of proposed amendments to the RAA, and that set of amendments has > > been considered for approval by the GNSO Council. > > > > > > > > Whereas, a majority of GNSO Council members have refused to support > > the set of proposed amendments as drafted, but many of those members > > support many of the proposed amendments. > > > > > > > > Whereas, the Council wishes to approve the non-contentious, proposed > > amendments agreed between Staff and the Registrars Constituency as > > quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if > > approved then implement them as quickly as possible. > > > > > > > > RESOLVED: > > > > > > > > The GNSO Council will form a fast-track Working Group to convene and > > discuss the proposed set of RAA Amendments, reporting back to Council > > within 30 days with answers to the following questions: > > > > > > > > 1. Which of the proposed amendments have full consensus as drafted? > > > > 2. Which of the proposed amendments would have full consensus if > > drafted differently, and what specific revisions are required to gain > > full consensus? > > > > 3. Which of the proposed amendments do not have consensus? > > > > 4. What other issues with the RAA are not addressed by the proposed > > set of Amendments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli Feb. 23, 2009

Feb. 23, 2009

Hi, The following cctlds have joined ccNSO: Solvenia Lithuania Italy Croatia Germany Belgium Best regards Olga

1 0

Call for Volunteers for Registration Abuse Policies Working Group.
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 23, 2009

Feb. 23, 2009

Dear Councillors, The GNSO Council agreed at its meeting on Thursday, 19 February 2009 as an action item arising from the motion passed on Registration Abuse Policies Charter: Item 4: Registration Abuse Policy WG and PDP http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-19feb09.shtml See motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?19_feb_2009_motions To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in the Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. Would the current members of to the Registration Abuse Policies drafting team please confirm that they will be willing to continue serving on the working group: Olga Cavalli - NomCom appointee Kristina Rosette - IPC Mike Rodenbaugh - CBUC Greg Aaron - Registry c. James Bladel - Registrar c. Zahid Jamil - CBUC Beau Brendler - ALAC Jeff Neuman, NeuStar Registry, has volunteered to serve on the working group. The mailing list address will remain: gnso-rap-dt(a)icann.org and the public archives are at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/ Please inform me <gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org> if you would like to be subscribed to this drafting team. 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

2 1

URGENT!! SCHEDULE CHANGE REQUEST: 2009 Mexico Meeting/GNSO Meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 22, 2009

Feb. 22, 2009

Dear All, Please note: On Sunday, 1 March, the "ccTLD Fast-Track Discussion" currently at 9:00 AM - 10:30 on the GNSO related meetings schedule will be at 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM The "IRTP A PDP" meeting currently at 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM will now be at 9:00 AM - 10:30. That is, the "ccTLD Fast-Track Discussion" and the "IRTP A PDP" meetings have been swapped. An updated schedule will be distributed in the next day or so. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motion re RAA Amendments
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 22, 2009

Feb. 22, 2009

Sorry to miss Thursday deadline, it has been a very rough week with the flu for me and my entire family. Even if we can't vote on this on Thursday, I would like to add it to AOB so we are prepared for a vote in Mexico City. There is nothing new here, I have suggested this several times in the past several months. For Staff to suggest going around the Council, after Council voted down the amendment package, is deeply troubling. This would keep the debate where it belongs, and hopefully will bring about swift, consensus amendments to the RAA in the next few months. Do I have a second? Thanks, Mike Whereas, the RAA has not been amended since inception, and there is widespread community support for amendments to various provisions of the RAA. Whereas, the Registrars Constituency and ICANN Staff have agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the RAA, and that set of amendments has been considered for approval by the GNSO Council. Whereas, a majority of GNSO Council members have refused to support the set of proposed amendments as drafted, but many of those members support many of the proposed amendments. Whereas, the Council wishes to approve the non-contentious, proposed amendments agreed between Staff and the Registrars Constituency as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council will form a fast-track Working Group to convene and discuss the proposed set of RAA Amendments, reporting back to Council within 30 days with answers to the following questions: 1. Which of the proposed amendments have full consensus as drafted? 2. Which of the proposed amendments would have full consensus if drafted differently, and what specific revisions are required to gain full consensus? 3. Which of the proposed amendments do not have consensus? 4. What other issues with the RAA are not addressed by the proposed set of Amendments?

4 6

GNSO related meeting schedule
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

Dear All, Attached please find a draft schedule of GNSO related meetings and events in Mexico City. The schedule is still subject to some changes, and should be read together with the main ICANN schedule on page: http://mex.icann.org/full-sched For other agendas please consult the Wiki pages: Tentative Agenda 28 February 2009 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_february_2009 Tentative Agenda 01 March 2009 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_01_march_2009 Tentative Agenda 02 March 2009 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_02_march_2009 Tentative Agenda 04 March 2009 Public Meeting https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_04_march_2009 Tentative Agenda 05 March 2009 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_05_march_2009 Remote participation will be sent out early next week. 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

Fwd: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

>To: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO >Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ><langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, At-Large Staff ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > >Dear Peter, > >On 11 December 2008, the Board of Directors requested a report on >the involvement of users in the GNSO, initially to be delivered by >24 January 2009, later extended to 20 February 2009. > >As per the Board request, the GNSO and ALAC facilitated the >convening of a working group with participants from the >ALAC/At-Large, GNSO and forming constituency communities. As the >ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, I am pleased to deliver this report on >behalf of the working group. > >My understanding is that the Chairs of both the ALAC and the GNSO >will request that their respective groups ratify this report before >or during the Mexico City meeting. > >Although a number of the participants entered into this working >group with some trepidation, it functioned remarkably well, all the >more so given the tight timeline. > >With warm regards, Alan Greenberg

1 0