February 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

July 2009 - June 2012 Strategic Plan Posted
by Glen de Saint Géry 09 Feb '09

09 Feb '09

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09feb09-en.htm July 2009 - June 2012 Strategic Plan Posted 9 February 2009 After extensive consultation with the community, the July 2009 - June 2012 Strategic Plan http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2009-2012-09feb09-en.… is being posted following its approval by the ICANN Board at its February meeting. The Strategic Plan sets out ICANN's priorities for the next three years and is used as the basis for shaping ICANN's annual operating plan and budget. Details of the annual planning cycle can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/planning/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New gTLD Question and Answer Open teleconference transcript 8 December 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry 09 Feb '09

09 Feb '09

Dear All, The transcript of the second New gTLD Question and Answer Open teleconference on 8 December 2008 is now available. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-new-gtld-08dec08.pdf For the record the GNSO Council hosted two New gTLD Question and Answer Open teleconferences held on 26 November and 8 December 2008. The transcript of the New gTLD Question and Answer Open teleconferences held on 26 November can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-gtld-26nov08.pdf and is posted on the GNSO calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index-2008.html#nov The transcript of the second New gTLD Question and Answer Open teleconference held on 8 December 2008 can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-new-gtld-08dec08.pdf and was posted today on the GNSO calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index-2008.html#dec Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
by Alan Greenberg 09 Feb '09

09 Feb '09

At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: >Motion 4 >Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO >======================================= >Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill >Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg >Whereas: > * On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board > approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a > recommendation on how to incorporate the > legitimate interests of individual Internet > users in the GNSO in constructive yet > non-duplicative ways and requesting that the > recommendation should be submitted no later > than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. > * In an email message to the GNSO Council > list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice > President, Policy Development clarified that > the11 December Resolution is an effort to help > the Board identify a strategic solution that > balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities > for all user and registrant stakeholders. > * The Working Group on GNSO Council > Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of > Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the > Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open > to membership of all interested parties that > use or provide services for the Internet, with > the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties > and should explicitly not be restricted to > domain registrants as recommended by the BGC > and that such recommendation was made in > response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. > * The GNSO Council Chair previously > contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. > * The potential members of the two GNSO > Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups > have been tasked with submitting proposed > Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board > prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. >Resolve: > * The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC > Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: > * Determine whether the ALAC and > At-Large community have any concerns with > regard to the recommendation that membership in > the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be > open to individual Internet users in addition > to domain name registrants and, if so, to > communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. > * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large > community would like the GNSO to identify some > user representatives, especially individual > users, who would be willing to work with the > ALAC and At-Large community to develop a > recommendation regarding the Boards request > that could be forwarded to the appropriate > groups for their consideration in developing a > stakeholder group charter and to the Board for > action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it. >If in either case the ALAC or At-large community >do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. > * Provide weekly progress reports to the > Council list regarding the above. > > * The Council directs the Council Chair to: > * Apologize to the Board that it failed > to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January > * Inform the Board that the GNSO: > * Is awaiting information from the ALAC. > * Is willing in cooperation with > users to identify user representatives, > especially individual users, who would be > willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large > community to develop a recommendation. > * Will promptly consider next steps > and respond to the Board as quickly as possible > after requested information is received from > the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be > developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. >The motion passed unanimously by voice vote *Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009

9 14

Possible ACSO Topics
by Avri Doria 09 Feb '09

09 Feb '09

hi, One of the goals I had was to gather topics for the ACSO meeting. In conversations and on the lists, I have picked up the following. 1. How do we involve all impacted stakeholders in policy development efforts as early as possible? 2. Geographic names - reasons and basis for reserving Geographic names, and which names should be reserved 3. New gTLD pricing, What is necessary for cost recovery? what is reasonable? Please give me some immediate feedback on these ideas and on any ideas which you may have contributed in the course of this discussion that I have not managed to record. I need to present a set of ideas to the other ACSO chairs tonight. Thanks a.

1 0

Mexico City Meeting Schedule Published
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Feb '09

08 Feb '09

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Mexico City Meeting Schedule Published 6 February 2009 The schedule for the upcoming meeting in Mexico City on 1-6 March is now published on the Mexico City Meeting Website<http://mex.icann.org/>. http://mex.icann.org/ You can view the full schedule here<http://mex.icann.org/node/2429>. http://mex.icann.org/node/2429 The schedule format has been redesigned to present a clear picture of the overall structure of the meeting, identifying the different sessions, rooms, and their associated time slots. Extensive use of standardized session and break times will provide a buffer between sessions to facilitate a smooth meeting flow and allow more time for delegate interaction. Other parts of the schedule that we wish to draw the community's attention to include: Increase in time allocated to Public Forum, with buffers to allow for unexpected overruns. A 90-minute Q&A session dedicated to the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook on Monday, 2 March. A Joint Public Meeting on Monday afternoon where representatives from the different Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will discuss and debate the issues of most importance to them. Everyone is invited to attend and a feedback session at the end will allow for commentary from the floor. An At-Large Summit will open on Saturday at the Sheraton, with a closing report to the community just prior to Thursday's Public Forum. Additional sessions will run in the nearby Hotel Melia on Sunday and Tuesday. A number of introductory sessions covering new gTLDs, IDNs and ICANN itself are designed to give first-time attendees an overview of the organization and its work. The community is invited to attend a public meeting of the new Public Participation Board Committee on Wednesday to discuss ways of improving participation within ICANN. An e-Crime Workshop is slated for Wednesday afternoon. Staff updates are now scheduled just before Friday's Board meeting to allow for presentations that reflect community feedback and give more time for public forums. We hope the community find the new schedule format useful and look forward to seeing you all in Mexico City. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
by Gomes, Chuck 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

Alan, Please add Zahid to the list of volunteers. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@jamilandjamil.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:40 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. I volunteer as well Zahid Jamil -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Sent: 07 February 2009 00:01 To: avri(a)acm.org; GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Am I correct that up to this point we have three volunteers: Bill Drake, Mary Wong and Avri. Did I miss anyone? Any additional individual volunteers should speak up very soon. Alan - Will you make sure that these three are informed how to participate in the ongoing work of the ALAC in this regard? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:34 PM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. > > > hi, > > I would like to sit in on this group. I am not sure, however, whether > I should be a proper member or an observer. > > While I certainly see myself as an individual user, of both the > commercial and the non-commercial flavor (i am both a technical > contractor with a domain name and a social activist with a domain > name), and think that in some sense my nature as an independent > independent user has fed into my appointment by the nomcom to the > GNSO, I cannot say that I represent Internet users. Further in the > context of any such effort, I would be as inclined, a chair of the > council, to present what I understood to be the multiplicity of GNSO > Council viewpoints as to present my own view of what was good for both > individual users and the ICANN/GNSO. I.e. I would try to do both. > > I am certainly committed to the overall advisory role of ALAC and as I > have said publicly on more then one occasion, believe that it should > occupy an advisory role on a par with the GAC. And while I have > tended toward the view that the GNSO constituencies were for > contracted parties and registrants (in agreement with the BGC report), > have accepted that the prevailing view in the council is for the > inclusion of users, and as chair will support that view. I also > believe it is important to find a way of doing it that is > non-duplicative. > > So, this is a mixed bag, but if people don't object, I am interested > in participating in the process. > > a. > > > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:37 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > I recommend that we not make a huge issue out of this and > simply identify some individual users to work with the ALAC. > First of all, we do not have time because, even with the Board > extension, we have to provide any recommendations by 20 February. > Secondly, the key is really to try and develop some sound > recommendations about how to involve individual users in the GNSO > without being duplicative with the ALAC. > If there are individuals from anywhere in the GNSO that are available > and willing to contribute constructively to the work that the ALAC is > doing in response to the Board's request, volunteer, but do it quickly > because the work is already ongoing and will be over before we know > it. > > > > Chuck > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van > > > Gelder > > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:08 AM > > > To: avri(a)acm.org; GNSO Council > > > Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. > > > > > > > > > Two good questions. > > > If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to > > > know that's what they actually are and that they do truly > represent > > > the constituency they are claiming to represent. > > > > > > On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all > qualify as > > > ind. > > > users. > > > > > > So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of > > > "catch-all". > > > > > > Stéphane Van Gelder > > > > > > > > > Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri(a)psg.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to > > > >> represent an individual users perspective rather than overly > > > >> conflicting with other interests? > > > >> > > > > > > > > How does one do this? > > > > > > > > In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it > > > not be up > > > > to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could > > > represent > > > > the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort? > > > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Board Resolution on Individual Users in the GNSO
by Denise Michel 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

Dear Councilors and other interested parties: At its 3 February meeting, the ICANN Board recognized ongoing efforts in the community to develop a recommendation for the Board on on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways. The Board also acknowledged the requests from the GNSO and ALAC Chairs, and from the NARALO "New Constituencies" Working Group, to extend the deadline for recommendations previously set by the Board. The Board subsequently passed a resolution asking that a consensus recommendation (or recommendations, if no consensus is reached) be submitted to the Board by 20 February 2009. The resolution is expected to be posted shortly. Included below, for your reference, is my previous email on this topic. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development policy-staff(a)icann.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM Subject: Board Resolution on individual users Dear Councilors and other interested parties: There has been some community discussion over the past weeks regarding the 11 December Board Resolution seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways. I would like to try to clarify the context of that resolution and clear up any misperceptions about its intent. This particular Resolution is the latest step on the part of the Board to resolve a fundamental strategic issue for the organization, that is, the appropriate role and representation of individual (commercial and non-commercial) Internet users in ICANN, and specifically within the GNSO. Its intent is to garner a recommendation from the interested community to assist the Board in resolving a recommendation made to the Board by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR) that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO Council should "…be open to membership of all interested parties … that use or provide services for the Internet, … and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC." Because ongoing independent review proceedings of other ICANN structures have suggested different representational approaches, I think the Board wanted to ensure ample input and advice was received before resolving the matter. The full context and description of this issue was contained in the November Public Comment Forum request for input (see background materials, comments filed, and Staff summary of those contributions). The 11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. In addition to the previous public comments, the Board hoped that the Resolution would spur additional community dialogue and agreement between interested parties. Given that the original WG-GCR recommendation was a consensus position supported by representatives from all the GNSO constituencies as well as GAC, ALAC and Nominating Committee participants, and that the Board decision on this matter could have broad impact, the Board did not mandate any particular methodology regarding the form that dialogue would take and the Resolution was drafted to offer flexibility in that regard. The Resolution also recognizes that this matter has particularly important (and time sensitive) implications for creation of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). In view of various community comments since the Resolution was published, it is important to emphasize that it is not intended to be a referendum on the different approaches that have been advanced by groups working on proposed NCSG charters. Staff has been corresponding with and providing assistance to participants about their efforts to produce draft NCSG charters that will ultimately be submitted to the Board. There appear to remain a few fundamental differences of opinion about the interpretation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group recommendations, endorsed by the Board, particularly regarding the continued primacy of the constituency structure outlined in the ICANN By-laws. Proposed charters are not intended to be within the scope of the 11 December Resolution. When community members formally submit to the Board one or more petitions/charters for NCSG formation (and other Stakeholder Group charters), those efforts will be publicly posted for comment by all members of the community and will subsequently be evaluated by the Board. As directed by the Board at its 1 October 2008 meeting, it is Staff's obligation to work with the community to encourage new participants, facilitate the creation of new constituencies, and support the development of four new Stakeholder Groups. We remain committed to that process and stand ready to assist members of the community. Please contact me and the Policy Staff if you need assistance or would like to discuss these matters. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development

1 0

FW: Maintenance on st.icann.org
by Glen de Saint Géry 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

FYI Dear all: We will be performing an upgrade on st.icann.org, our Wiki appliance this Saturday, Feb.7. The web interface may be offline from 10am to 5pm (PST). A notification will be sent once all work as been completed. Thanks. Best Yan

1 0

Letter to the Board relating to Public Participation at meetings
by Avri Doria 05 Feb '09

05 Feb '09

Dear Peter, The attached open letter has been prepared by the GNSO Council and is sent with the consensus of that council. I thank the Board in anticipation of your consideration of this letter. Best Regards, Avri Doria Chair, GNSO Council

1 0

Video on gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 Feb '09

05 Feb '09

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] All Check out the front page of the ICANN website http://www.icann.org/ for a video posted today featuring Paul Twomey, Kurt Pritz and Doug Brent. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0