March 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [gnso-whois-dt] ALAC WHOIS results
by Liz Gasster March 3, 2009

March 3, 2009

All, Yesterday the ALAC voted to approve the priorities identified in the attached as the official ALAC view on WHOIS studies. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-whois-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:29 AM To: Council GNSO; gnso-whois-dt(a)icann.org Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] ALAC WHOIS results Steve Metalitz just pointed out that I had not sent this as I said I would at last week's Council meeting. My apologies. The ALAC is in the process of voting on this submission, and the result will be finalized on Monday, March 2nd. The attached spreadsheet gives the ALAC priorities. It also gives the averages before the ALAC vote, and after, with those above 2.5 highlighted in green. With a threshold of 2.5, the ALAC vote include two addition studies. If the threshold is increased to 2.65, the final list remains the same as before the ALAC submission. Alan

1 0

Notice of Intent to Form Cybersafety Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth March 3, 2009

March 3, 2009

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Notice of Intent to Form a New GNSO Constituency (NOIF) submitted by Cheryl B. Preston of the CP80.org Foundation proposing to form the new Cybersafety Constituency. Board members have also been sent a copy of the document as an FYI. I will also be sending a copy to the constituencies mailing list as an FYI, and we'll be posting the NOIF on the GNSO Improvements Home Page http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth +1 424.558.4805

3 5

[Fwd: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on timing of the new IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process]
by Avri Doria March 2, 2009

March 2, 2009

-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Cc: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> Subject: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on timing of the new IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:51:23 -0800 Avri, This is the resolution of the ccNSO Council Chris referred to. It is also published on the ccnso website (www.ccnso.icann.org) Kind regards, Bart --------------------- "Resolution ccNSO Council 19 February 2009 on timing of the launch of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. Background In 2007 the ccNSO, and the ICANN community generally, discussed the possibility of using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to meet near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs that would also inform a policy development process aimed at creating an overall policy on IDN ccTLDs. To that end in November 2007 the ICANN Board requested the chairs of the ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC to establish a working group (the IDNC Working Group) to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed. After extensive community comment, the IDNC Working Group submitted its final report to the ICANN Board. In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the IDNC WG final report for public comments, commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders and submit a detailed implementation plan including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008. Resolution The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments was a statement that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts” (GNSO Council submission, 15 August 2008). The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 January 2009, which states that the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the new gTLD nor ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs being entered into the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree. The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process. 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we would welcome a discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of the apparent change in view."

2 1

Revised RAA amendment/motion
by Tim Ruiz March 1, 2009

March 1, 2009

This is the revised amendment/motion drafted by a drafting team comprised of representatives from the NCUC, IPC, and RrC. We tried to address most of the concerns that have been raised. Let us know your thoughts. Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations; Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible; and Whereas, The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps. Resolved: The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p… and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6, 2009; Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later then July 31; and Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009. Tim

3 2

Fwd: NCSG Proposal and Executive Summary
by Mary Wong March 1, 2009

March 1, 2009

Hello everyone, I am forwarding, for your information and review, the charter that has just been submitted by the NCUC on the proposed new Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). As you will see from Robin Gross' email (below) and the Executive Summary (attached), the NCUC has tried to formulate a charter that will be a viable long-term, flexible structure that also addresses the need for greater inclusiveness and participation (especially of individual users) while endorsing the move toward consensus-based working group policy formulation. We believe the charter, which in its present form was crafted through an ongoing process of consultation and feedback-gathering both within the NCUC and with other interested groups (e.g. the ALAC), represents the most thorough and best attempt to date to meet the Board's articulated goals for constituency/GNSO revitalization. The NCUC Councillors, Chair and Executive Committee will be very happy to discuss any aspect of the proposed charter during the Mexico meeting and, indeed, any time following. Best regards, Mary Subject: NCSG Proposal and Executive Summary 28 February 2009 To: ICANN Board, Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair From: Robin Gross, Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency Dear Peter: The NCUC is pleased to submit a proposed charter for the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). We have been working on this charter since June of 2008, and have entered into extensive consultations with ICANN staff members, ALAC, At Large representatives, Board members and our own constituency members on its development. We have been asked by staff to prepare a cover letter to accompany the proposal which provides an executive summary and explains why we have adopted innovative approaches to certain problems posed by the formation of stakeholder groups. The essential elements of this proposal are: Noncommercial stakeholders join the NCSG directly, and the NCSG keeps track of membership and administers voting for Council seats by the membership as a whole. The NCSG is administered by an annually elected Chair and a Policy Committee. The Policy Committee is composed of the 6 elected GNSO Councilors and one representative from each Constituency. There are three classes of membership: 1) large organizations (which receive 4 votes), small organizations (which receive 2 votes) and individuals (who receive 1 vote). Constituencies are formed as sub-units within the NCSG. We have deliberately made it relatively easy to form and join constituencies; at the same time we have de-linked Constituency formation from Council seats so that NCSG participants do not have artificial incentives to fragment into competing groups. If the Board wishes to approve constituency formation under these terms we will embody this requirement in the charter. Constituencies are given special rights to propose Working Groups and assured that their positions are incorporated into any and all public comments submitted by the NCSG into the policy development process. To protect the voice of minorities in the policy process, we require allNCSG representatives on the GNSO Council to vote in favor of the formation of a Working Group if it has the support of 1/3 of the constituencies or 1/5 of the whole membership. Now we would like to explain how this plan advances the principles and goals of the GNSO Improvements process. As you know, the Board has articulated four “vital principles” that are critical to the GNSO revitalization process. They are: § GNSO policy development activities should become more visible and transparent to a wider range of stakeholders; § Reforms should enhance the representativeness of the GNSO Council and its constituencies; § Operational changes should help enhance the GNSO’s ability to reach consensus on policy positions that enjoy wide support in the ICANN community; and § GNSO stakeholder representation structures need to be flexible and adaptable. Our proposal meets these goals better than any of the proposed alternatives. Principle 1: Visibility and Transparency. When noncommercial stakeholders are fragmented into independent constituencies, each with their own mailing list, administrative structure and representatives, it is literally impossible for an ordinary noncommercial organization to keep track of them all. Noncommercial stakeholders in one constituency would have no idea what is happening in other constituencies. Our proposal integrates all policy deliberation and voting into a unified structure. This enhances the visibility and transparency of the SG. Principle 2: Representativeness. Our proposal enhances representation in several ways. First, by adopting a model of flexible and easy-to-form constituencies as sub-units within the NCSG, we allow a far more diverse set of interests and coalitions to form. Most important, through unified voting for GNSO Council seats, our proposal ensures that whoever represents noncommercial stakeholders on the Council has support across all constituencies, not just a bare majority of a small subgroup of the SG. Principle 3: Consensus. We believe that the old GNSO constituency structure, which assigns a specific number of Council seats to specific constituencies, is inimical to the formation of consensus. That approach encourages small subgroups to break away and form their “own” constituencies in order to gain a guaranteed Council seat. Once a constituency controls specific Council seats/votes, they have little incentive to seek support from other Council members for their views or their representatives. We already have evidence from this; we note that none of the “new constituencies” currently being proposed for the Noncommercial Stakeholders actually represent newcomers to the ICANN space as envisioned. All of them are existing members of NCUC or RALOs who wish to gain guaranteed seats on the GNSO Council without having to win an election among a large number of other noncommercial entities and individuals. Our proposal is understands that policy development in the new GNSO will not come from a Council acting as a legislator, but from consensus-based Working Groups. Therefore, we allow relatively small minorities of the NCSG to bind our Council representatives to support the formation of a Working Group. Once a Working Group is formed, its proponents will have to convince many other stakeholders to agree on a common policy. We think there should be a low threshold for the formation of a WG, so that anyone can have a chance to convince the rest of the GNSO of the need for a policy. Principle 4: Flexibility and Adaptability. The old constituency model is broken. It rigidly assigns Council seats and representation to categories of users that are constantly changing, categories that may overlap in numerous ways. Dividing the world up into mutually exclusive categories known as “constituencies” is always bound to exclude some people who don’t fit the categories, and at the same time over-represent entities who qualify for two or three of the categories. By detaching Constituencies from Council seats, our proposal can make constituencies much more flexible and lightweight. We make constituencies more like intra-Stakeholder Group working groups – easier to form and not mutually exclusive. NCSG members can join multiple constituencies, and constituencies can form and disband more easily without disrupting the entire representational structure of the NCSG. Under the old model, once a constituency is formed, there is a strong danger that it can be captured or controlled by a small group, especially as membership and participation declines. The NCSG charter proposed here solves this problem by situating constituencies in a large NCSG membership that cannot be easily captured. We hope the Board appreciates the careful thought and collective effort that went into this proposal. We are of course willing to modify it based on reasoned comments and criticisms that may come from the Board and any other noncommercial groups that have not been involved. We look forward to consulting with you in Mexico and at future meetings as we hone the details of the proposal. Thank you. Best regards, Robin D. Gross, Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency Mary W S Wong Professor of Law 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

1 1