March 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council lunch meeting Monday 2 March in Mexico City MP3 recording
by Glen de Saint Géry March 16, 2009

March 16, 2009

Dear All, Please find the recording of the joint ccNSO/GNSO Council lunch meeting on Monday 2 March in Mexico City. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/20090302-GNSO-COUNCIL.mp3 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

RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
by Tim Ruiz March 16, 2009

March 16, 2009

Why are the deadlines given by the Board any more written in stone than those in the Bylaws? The latter have been missed on almost every PDP ever done. Doesn't the argument that it is more important for the work to be done right, have integrity, and instill confidence just as important here? I agree that the IP and Business community shoul have their legitimate concerns addressed before the new gTLD process can move forward. But there is nothing to gain in the long term by a mad rush to an end game that doesn't work well or as expected. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Thu, March 12, 2009 8:43 am To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Bill, Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible given the deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and the work that needs to be done. Moreover, a large number of people from almost every constituency and some of the ACs had already contacted IPC members about participating and had been provided similar information to that set forth below. I posted the message below in an effort to provide the information for dissemination to those who had not already contacted IPC members. As for the Board's intent, I believe the language of the resolution speaks for itself. Kristina From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants Hi Kristina, Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC. However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to Monday or Tuesday. Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th noon deadline is a very unworkable turnaround time if we are serious about getting strong applicants and engagement from all constituencies, as the board intends. Some people might not be reading mail today or be able to determine so quickly whether the workload fits with their schedule etc. Thanks, Bill On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: All, Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations for IRT participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide the information below. Nominations for IRT participants should be sent to Steve Metalitz (IPC President), Ute, Cyril or me. Steve's email address is not on the Council page or the IPC home page so please contact me off-list if you would like it. The nominations must include: 1. The full name and contact information of the nominee (including the name of her/his employer and title); 2. The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a citizen and is a resident; 3. Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system; 4. Identification of any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries, registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement; 5. State if the nominee would be representing any other party or person through her/his IRT participation and, if so, identify that party or person; and 6. State if the nominee submitted public comments on the first draft of the DAG that provided proposed solutions to the trademark issues and, if so, attach a copy of those comments. We must receive all nominations not later than Friday, 13 March, at noon EDT. Because of the deadlines set forth by the Board in the resolution, it will be exceedingly difficult to consider any nominations submitted after that point. Also, based on very preliminary time lines, IRT participants should expect to spend at least 15 full business days (excluding travel time) in the next two months on the team's work. Kristina *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj ***********************************************************

3 2

RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
by Tim Ruiz March 16, 2009

March 16, 2009

Tony, I don't disagree entirely with that either. But let's be honest, most of the concern over delay comes from potential applicants and from registrars, not from registrants as far as I can see. Registries and Registrants have a legitimate vested interest in seeing things move forward quickly, but Staff should not dismiss the concerns of others as less important. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants From: "Anthony Harris" <harris(a)cabase.org.ar> Date: Mon, March 16, 2009 1:20 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I think the new gTLD process has already been delayed successively for well over a year now, and would personally support the Board/Staff inclination to avoid overextending it much longer. Obviously a quick and informed analysis of the concerns from the IPC community needs to be undertaken, with a view to giving reasonable response to these in the next version of the guidebook. The timeframe envisioned does not appear to be too demanding in this respect. The previous new gTLDs were rolled out with much less numerous and detailed pre-requisites, albeit being a sponsored round. I think it fair to state that their introduction did not give rise to a "tsunami" of grave and serious problems being unleashed over the Internet stakeholders and users to date. My vote of confidence to the ICANN Board and Staff on their timeline. The Internet is about change and innovation, this process is no less than that. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants > > Sure. But my point is that we find more time is needed, then more time > is needed. If a reasonable case can be made for more time it should not > be seen as unilateral disregard for Board deadlines. It gets back to the > whole question of ligitimacy and institutional confidence - if more time > is truely needed it should be given. > > Regardless of the what Board and Staff desires in regards to getting the > new gTLD process rolled out, this really isn't "their" process, it's > ours (all stakeholders). We need to be realistic about what a finite > group of people can accomplish in a finite timeframe and what it takes > to get the community behind what we do. > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Mon, March 16, 2009 11:57 am > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Tim, > > I do not believe it would be appropriate for the IPC to decide > unilaterally to disregard the Board's deadlines. Perhaps you could > direct your question to Rita and/or Bruce? > > K > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:22 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants > > > Why are the deadlines given by the Board any more written in stone than > those in the Bylaws? The latter have been missed on almost every PDP > ever done. Doesn't the argument that it is more important for the work > to be done right, have integrity, and instill confidence just as > important here? > > I agree that the IP and Business community shoul have their legitimate > concerns addressed before the new gTLD process can move forward. But > there is nothing to gain in the long term by a mad rush to an end game > that doesn't work well or as expected. > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Thu, March 12, 2009 8:43 am > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hi Bill, > > Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible given the > deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and the work that > needs to be done. Moreover, a large number of people from almost every > constituency and some of the ACs had already contacted IPC members about > participating and had been provided similar information to that set > forth below. I posted the message below in an effort to provide the > information for dissemination to those who had not already contacted IPC > members. As for the Board's intent, I believe the language of the > resolution speaks for itself. > > Kristina > > > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM > To: Rosette, Kristina > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants > > > > Hi Kristina, > > Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC. > However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to Monday > or Tuesday. Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th noon deadline is > a very unworkable turnaround time if we are serious about getting strong > applicants and engagement from all constituencies, as the board intends. > Some people might not be reading mail today or be able to determine so > quickly whether the workload fits with their schedule etc. > > > Thanks, > > > Bill > > On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > > All, > Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations for IRT > participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide the information > below. > Nominations for IRT participants should be sent to Steve Metalitz (IPC > President), Ute, Cyril or me. Steve's email address is not on the > Council page or the IPC home page so please contact me off-list if you > would like it. > The nominations must include: > 1. The full name and contact information of the nominee (including the > name of her/his employer and title); > 2. The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a citizen and > is a resident; > 3. Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise > in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and > the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system; > 4. Identification of any financial ownership or senior > management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries, registrars > or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN > or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other > arrangement; > 5. State if the nominee would be representing any other party or person > through her/his IRT participation and, if so, identify that party or > person; and > 6. State if the nominee submitted public comments on the first draft of > the DAG that provided proposed solutions to the trademark issues and, if > so, attach a copy of those comments. > We must receive all nominations not later than Friday, 13 March, at noon > EDT. Because of the deadlines set forth by the Board in the resolution, > it will be exceedingly difficult to consider any nominations submitted > after that point. Also, based on very preliminary time lines, IRT > participants should expect to spend at least 15 full business days > (excluding travel time) in the next two months on the team's work. > Kristina > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
by Tim Ruiz March 16, 2009

March 16, 2009

Sure. But my point is that we find more time is needed, then more time is needed. If a reasonable case can be made for more time it should not be seen as unilateral disregard for Board deadlines. It gets back to the whole question of ligitimacy and institutional confidence - if more time is truely needed it should be given. Regardless of the what Board and Staff desires in regards to getting the new gTLD process rolled out, this really isn't "their" process, it's ours (all stakeholders). We need to be realistic about what a finite group of people can accomplish in a finite timeframe and what it takes to get the community behind what we do. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Mon, March 16, 2009 11:57 am To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I do not believe it would be appropriate for the IPC to decide unilaterally to disregard the Board's deadlines. Perhaps you could direct your question to Rita and/or Bruce? K -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:22 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants Why are the deadlines given by the Board any more written in stone than those in the Bylaws? The latter have been missed on almost every PDP ever done. Doesn't the argument that it is more important for the work to be done right, have integrity, and instill confidence just as important here? I agree that the IP and Business community shoul have their legitimate concerns addressed before the new gTLD process can move forward. But there is nothing to gain in the long term by a mad rush to an end game that doesn't work well or as expected. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Thu, March 12, 2009 8:43 am To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Bill, Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible given the deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and the work that needs to be done. Moreover, a large number of people from almost every constituency and some of the ACs had already contacted IPC members about participating and had been provided similar information to that set forth below. I posted the message below in an effort to provide the information for dissemination to those who had not already contacted IPC members. As for the Board's intent, I believe the language of the resolution speaks for itself. Kristina From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants Hi Kristina, Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC. However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to Monday or Tuesday. Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th noon deadline is a very unworkable turnaround time if we are serious about getting strong applicants and engagement from all constituencies, as the board intends. Some people might not be reading mail today or be able to determine so quickly whether the workload fits with their schedule etc. Thanks, Bill On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: All, Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations for IRT participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide the information below. Nominations for IRT participants should be sent to Steve Metalitz (IPC President), Ute, Cyril or me. Steve's email address is not on the Council page or the IPC home page so please contact me off-list if you would like it. The nominations must include: 1. The full name and contact information of the nominee (including the name of her/his employer and title); 2. The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a citizen and is a resident; 3. Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system; 4. Identification of any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries, registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement; 5. State if the nominee would be representing any other party or person through her/his IRT participation and, if so, identify that party or person; and 6. State if the nominee submitted public comments on the first draft of the DAG that provided proposed solutions to the trademark issues and, if so, attach a copy of those comments. We must receive all nominations not later than Friday, 13 March, at noon EDT. Because of the deadlines set forth by the Board in the resolution, it will be exceedingly difficult to consider any nominations submitted after that point. Also, based on very preliminary time lines, IRT participants should expect to spend at least 15 full business days (excluding travel time) in the next two months on the team's work. Kristina *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj ***********************************************************

2 1

RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
by Zahid Jamil March 16, 2009

March 16, 2009

Dear Tim, I also wish we had more time and feel the board deadline is very demanding especially in light of the important legal issues involved. I too would like to avoid a mad rush. But this process was achieved after much effort and many may be reluctant to feel they may lose its effectiveness if we delay Do you have a suggestion how we can ensure an extension on the board deadline? Best 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: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Sent: 16 March 2009 21:21 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants Why are the deadlines given by the Board any more written in stone than those in the Bylaws? The latter have been missed on almost every PDP ever done. Doesn't the argument that it is more important for the work to be done right, have integrity, and instill confidence just as important here? I agree that the IP and Business community shoul have their legitimate concerns addressed before the new gTLD process can move forward. But there is nothing to gain in the long term by a mad rush to an end game that doesn't work well or as expected. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Thu, March 12, 2009 8:43 am To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Bill, Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible given the deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and the work that needs to be done. Moreover, a large number of people from almost every constituency and some of the ACs had already contacted IPC members about participating and had been provided similar information to that set forth below. I posted the message below in an effort to provide the information for dissemination to those who had not already contacted IPC members. As for the Board's intent, I believe the language of the resolution speaks for itself. Kristina From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants Hi Kristina, Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC. However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to Monday or Tuesday. Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th noon deadline is a very unworkable turnaround time if we are serious about getting strong applicants and engagement from all constituencies, as the board intends. Some people might not be reading mail today or be able to determine so quickly whether the workload fits with their schedule etc. Thanks, Bill On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: All, Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations for IRT participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide the information below. [The entire original message is not included]

1 0

FW: Travel Database for Sydney
by Glen de Saint Géry March 15, 2009

March 15, 2009

Forwarded from Stacy Hoffberg Please complete the forms in case you may be receiving travel support. This will speed up the process. Thank you, Glen Dear all: Job well done in Mexico City! I know we are all recovering however the Sydney meeting is just around the corner and we have tight deadline dates for the Sydney hotel. FINAL TRAVEL DATABASES ARE DUE MONDAY, APRIL 6TH Attached please find the travel database template for your use. All fields must be completed in order for travel support to begin. It is important for you to complete the columns marked arrival date and return date. This will indicate the dates that ICANN is supporting hotel accommodations and per diems. Should someone choose to arrive prior to the date listed or extend their stay they will be responsible for their for accommodations. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Best, Stacy Stacy Hoffberg Meeting Planner ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way | Ste 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA tel +1 310 301 3875 | fax +1 310 823 8649 http://icann.org

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli March 13, 2009

March 13, 2009

Hi The ccNSO now has its 90th member, Montserrat. Have a nice weekend! Regards Olga

1 0

Nominations for IRT Participants
by Rosette, Kristina March 12, 2009

March 12, 2009

All, Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations for IRT participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide the information below. Nominations for IRT participants should be sent to Steve Metalitz (IPC President), Ute, Cyril or me. Steve's email address is not on the Council page or the IPC home page so please contact me off-list if you would like it. The nominations must include: 1. The full name and contact information of the nominee (including the name of her/his employer and title); 2. The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a citizen and is a resident; 3. Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system; 4. Identification of any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries, registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement; 5. State if the nominee would be representing any other party or person through her/his IRT participation and, if so, identify that party or person; and 6. State if the nominee submitted public comments on the first draft of the DAG that provided proposed solutions to the trademark issues and, if so, attach a copy of those comments. We must receive all nominations not later than Friday, 13 March, at noon EDT. Because of the deadlines set forth by the Board in the resolution, it will be exceedingly difficult to consider any nominations submitted after that point. Also, based on very preliminary time lines, IRT participants should expect to spend at least 15 full business days (excluding travel time) in the next two months on the team's work. Kristina

2 2

GNSO Council wrap-up session transcript
by Glen de Saint Géry March 6, 2009

March 6, 2009

Dear All, The transcript of the GNSO wrap-up session can be directly accessed at: http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-gnso-wrap-up05mar… and is posted on pages: http://mex.icann.org/node/2691 and http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#march Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO working sessions 1 March 2009 - Transcript
by Glen de Saint Géry March 6, 2009

March 6, 2009

Dear All, The transcript of the GNSO working sessions on Sunday, 1 March 2009, can be directly viewed at: files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-gnso-working-session-01mar09-en.txt (The text will be split up into the appropriate groups in a short while) and is posted on page http://mex.icann.org/node/3224 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0