April 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft GNSO Council Agenda 16 April 2009 at 14:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

Dear Councillors, Attached and in plain text below, please find the draft GNSO Council agenda for Thursday, 16 April 2009. The agenda is also posted on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_16_april_2009 The motions are posted on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_april_motions Please note the change of time to 14:00 UTC. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen .............................................................................. Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 16 April 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-16april09.shtml Item 0: Roll call of Council members (5 mins) Item 1: Update any statements of interest (5 mins) Item 2: Review/amend agenda (5 mins) Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes (5 mins) GNSO Council minutes 26 March 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06583.html Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) (deferred from previous meeting) (20 mins) - 4.1 Staff Presentation of IRTP Part A PDPFinal Report http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/irtp-part-a-report-presentation-16apr0… - 4.2 Vote See motion on the Wiki page: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_april_motions Item 5: Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address (15 mins) See motion on the Wiki page: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_april_motions Item 6: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items (continued from previous meeting) (Council) (10 mins) Resolution approved on 4 March: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ 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; http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#09 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 than July 31 2009; and Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later than July 31, 2009. Item 7: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP) decision (Alan Greenberg/Drafting Team) (10 mins) Proposed Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to PEDNR; Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report; Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP; Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of registrar transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP Part C PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. The charter of the Task Force or Working Group charged with carrying out this PDP should include a mandate to consider both Consensus Policy recommendations as well as recommendations regarding best practices, ICANN compliance obligations and possible RAA changes, all associated with staff recommendations in the Issues Report section 4.2. Specifically, consideration of the following questions: . Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; . Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; . Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; . Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined). . Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter. Item 8: Whois service requirements motion (10 mins) See motion on the Wiki page: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_april_motions Item 9: Motion on Travel Funding (10 mins) See motion on the Wiki page: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_april_motions Item 10: New Bylaw discussion (10 mins) Item 11: Status Updates (15 mins) 11 . 1 Board Update http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm 11. 2 ccNSO Liaison update 11. 3 Geographical Region WG update 11. 4 Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) status update http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#07 11. 5 Joint GNSO/ccNSO group to discuss coordination of timing for IDN TLDs (Avri Doria /Chris Disspain) update 11. 6 Policy Items 11. 6. 1. Working Groups 11. 6. 1. 1. Fast Flux 11. 6. 1. 2. Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) 11. 6. 2. Drafting Teams 11. 6. 2.1. Travel Policy Drafting Team - Travel Database for Sydney http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06424.html 11. 6. 2. 2. Response to IDN ccTLD Fast Track 11. 6. 3 GNSO Improvement Work Teams 11. 6. 3. 1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) 11. 6. 3. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT 11. 6. 3. 3. Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Communications coordination work team 11. 6. 3. 4. OSC Constituency operations work team 11. 6. 3. 5. OSC GNSO Council operations work team 11. 7. Restructuring group http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf - deadlines to be met Item 12: AOB (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 1600 Brussels, 00:00 Melbourne next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-7+1DST 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 15:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 00:00 (Friday) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Motion on Travel Funding
by Tim Ruiz April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

Actually, I may have only sent them to the Travel DT, just options to help us develop a proposal. But I believe the scenario in your motion was the one supported by the DT members. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Travel Funding From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Thu, April 09, 2009 7:52 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Kristina, No. The aim of the motion is to allocate the left-over DNSO funds for Sydney in an equitable manner amongst all Constituencies. The motion doesn’t go any further than that. Two general scenarios have been put forward by Tim Ruiz, who is also on the DT. I did not include them in the motion because the first matter of urgency is for the Council to actually decide that the funds will be used, or not, for the provision of extra travel funding. Each of Tim’s scenarios is an attempt to allocate the funds according to the number of Constituencies, while taking some measure of account of the funding already used this fiscal year by each Constituency. I believe Tim has previously sent these scenarios to the Council list, so we can discuss them during our discussion on this motion if Council members wish to. Thanks, Stéphane Le 09/04/09 04:32, « Rosette, Kristina » <https://email.secureserver.net/krosette@cov.com> a écrit : Thanks, Stéphane. Is the practical effect of this motion to fund slots for 7 persons per constituency for the current fiscal year? From: https://email.secureserver.net/owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:50 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion on Travel Funding Hello all, As you know, the travel drafting team has been working on proposals to best manage TF allocation. As you also know, there has been a proposal to use left-over DNSO funds to help “top up” the amount of funding available for the final meeting of the current fiscal year, which is Sydney (any work the DT is now working on would not have any effect until the next fiscal year). In light of this, the DT has opted to put forward a motion for our next council meeting. This is the motion proposal which I have drafted on behalf of the DT and wanted to get in before the deadline (which is today, right?). Comments and thoughts welcome. Thanks. Stéphane Whereas: At its meeting of September 25, 2008 the GNSO Council created the Travel Drafting Team (TDT) to work on proposals to optimize the allocation and the management of Travel Funding for the GNSO Constituencies. At a meeting held during the Mexico ICANN meeting in March 2009 between the TDT and members of ICANN staff, the TDT requested that all GNSO Constituencies receive Funding Slots for each of their elected Councillors at each one of the three yearly international ICANN meetings, with the understanding that it would then be up to each Constituency to allocate these slots according to their own internal processes. That request stemmed in part from the recognition of the significant, and ever increasing work loads, that GNSO Councillors face. Work which they carry out as unpaid volunteers. Since that meeting it has been identified that an amount of funds left over from the DNSO are available for use should the Council wish to provide additional Travel Funding to those GNSO Constituencies that no longer have enough credits left for their three slots for the final meeting of the fiscal year 2008, in Sydney. The funds identified are in the amount of 19,963.79 USD. Resolved: That the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express purpose of providing additional Travel Funding for those persons nominated by each Constituency as recipients to be of said Travel Support.

2 1

Motion on Travel Funding
by Stéphane Van Gelder April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

Hello all, As you know, the travel drafting team has been working on proposals to best manage TF allocation. As you also know, there has been a proposal to use left-over DNSO funds to help ³top up² the amount of funding available for the final meeting of the current fiscal year, which is Sydney (any work the DT is now working on would not have any effect until the next fiscal year). In light of this, the DT has opted to put forward a motion for our next council meeting. This is the motion proposal which I have drafted on behalf of the DT and wanted to get in before the deadline (which is today, right?). Comments and thoughts welcome. Thanks. Stéphane Whereas: At its meeting of September 25, 2008 the GNSO Council created the Travel Drafting Team (TDT) to work on proposals to optimize the allocation and the management of Travel Funding for the GNSO Constituencies. At a meeting held during the Mexico ICANN meeting in March 2009 between the TDT and members of ICANN staff, the TDT requested that all GNSO Constituencies receive Funding Slots for each of their elected Councillors at each one of the three yearly international ICANN meetings, with the understanding that it would then be up to each Constituency to allocate these slots according to their own internal processes. That request stemmed in part from the recognition of the significant, and ever increasing work loads, that GNSO Councillors face. Work which they carry out as unpaid volunteers. Since that meeting it has been identified that an amount of funds left over from the DNSO are available for use should the Council wish to provide additional Travel Funding to those GNSO Constituencies that no longer have enough credits left for their three slots for the final meeting of the fiscal year 2008, in Sydney. The funds identified are in the amount of 19,963.79 USD. Resolved: That the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express purpose of providing additional Travel Funding for those persons nominated by each Constituency as recipients to be of said Travel Support.

3 4

Follow-Up to the e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum in Mexico City
by Margie Milam April 8, 2009

April 8, 2009

Dear All, We would like to thank the ICANN Community for its participation in the e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum that took place during the 34th ICANN Meeting in Mexico City. We greatly appreciate the information that was shared during the Break-Out Sessions and the Q&A. The Forum was very well-received and was effective in communicating the complex issues faced by those in the Community tackling this multifaceted subject. To continue the dialogue in the Community, ICANN has posted additional information on the e-Crime Forum and recommendations from the Break-out Sessions held in conjunction with the e-Crime Forum on the following topics: ccTLDs and Law Enforcement Protecting Consumers in New and Existing TLDs The Role of ICANN in Responding to e-Crime E-Crime in Latin America We invite you to review at your convenience the summary of the e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum at the link below. http://mex.icann.org/node/3638 We also would like to receive feedback and suggestions from the Community on whether follow-up sessions would be appropriate at the 35th ICANN Meeting to be held in Sydney June 21-26. We have already received suggestions for additional in-depth sessions on ccTLDs and Law Enforcement, and on protecting consumers from e-Crime and DNS abuse. If you believe that it is important to continue to address this topic in Sydney, please reply by Friday, April 17th with your thoughts on the format, topics, and other ideas for additional sessions on this topic. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Best regards, Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

1 0

RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
by Tim Ruiz April 8, 2009

April 8, 2009

My concern is prioritizing at the Council level. Managing the policy process should include some consideration of time and resource management. That will naturally allow Staff to prioritize, or as Philip suggested, allow us to direct Staff appropriately on priority of the work we've asked for. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, April 08, 2009 3:52 am To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, "'GNSO Council'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I'm in a kind of half-way house about all this. On the one hand, I fully support Tim's comments that prioritising our work may lead to us actually getting things done. On the other, I do feel that it's our responsibility as GNSO Council to try and tackle all the important issues that lie before us, not just some of them. There's been a great deal of talk about volunteer burn-out since Mexico, and the fact that we find ourselves at the limit of what we can handle should be of great worry to the ICANN community as a whole. That's certainly an issue there that needs to be addressed. However, I do think Avri's motion on WHOIS is worthwhile having, just as I consider new gTLD work and GNSO improvement work crucial. Having staff alert us when they can no longer cope may be one way of dealing with the sheer volume of issues to be tackled by the GNSO Council. It implies that we rely on staff more and more to simplify our lives for us, which is no bad thing... Unless staff finds itself unable to cope with that (but they haven't sent us that signal so far I don't think). But I agree that the order in which we should do things is for us to initiate work on an issue, and then for staff to give us the timeframe in which they can reasonably be expected to handle that issue and the work we put their way on that issue. Checking with staff before we embark on something seems like taking something away from our role as the people responsible for setting things in motion as far as the issues the GNSO handles is concerned. Stéphane Le 08/04/09 09:23, « Philip Sheppard » <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> a écrit : > > Chuck wrote: > "Maybe we should start by asking Staff whether they have the bandwidth to take > this on at > this time and if not request > an estimate as to when they think they would be able to do so". > > --------------------- > Chuck, this seems a little backwards and implies every current issue occupying > staff time > has greater priority than future ideas such as this. > A better way to proceed is for Council to make as many requests of staff as we > deem > necessary. > Staff management then respond and indicate resource constraints. They list the > activities > they are doing and request Council to prioritise the list. > We prioritise. > Staff act. > > Philip >

2 1

RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
by Tim Ruiz April 8, 2009

April 8, 2009

To work well, it would help if we have prioritized our work at the Council level to begin with. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, April 08, 2009 7:57 am To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Philip, Your suggested approach would seem to accomplish what I intended. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:24 AM > To: 'GNSO Council' > Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service > Requirements > > > Chuck wrote: > "Maybe we should start by asking Staff whether they have the > bandwidth to take this on at this time and if not request an > estimate as to when they think they would be able to do so". > > --------------------- > Chuck, this seems a little backwards and implies every > current issue occupying staff time has greater priority than > future ideas such as this. > A better way to proceed is for Council to make as many > requests of staff as we deem necessary. > Staff management then respond and indicate resource > constraints. They list the activities they are doing and > request Council to prioritise the list. > We prioritise. > Staff act. > > Philip > >

1 0

RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
by Tim Ruiz April 8, 2009

April 8, 2009

Mike/Chuck, The WHOIS issue may very well be a priority in light of new IDN TLDs. Didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. Just pointing out that we may want to have a discussion about priorities so we know how to approach our work and manage our time, and what we would like Staff to focus on. For example, and this is just an example, anything to do with the new gTLD process and GNSO improvements have priority, next we have to finish work we've started but we should be cautious about starting anything else unless there is a proven urgency within the community. Or something like that. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 7:37 pm To: "'GNSO Council'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Good point Tim. Let's abandon the contentious (some might say 'ridiculous') aspects of the so-called 'GNSO Improvements' that so many of us are wasting so much time to address. Then we and Staff would have a lot more time to focus on important policy development issues like WHOIS. 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 Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:30 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements Where does this fall priority wise within the plethora of issues we and staff are already dealing with right now? Seems we should be making some either/or types of decisions at this point in time. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 11:51 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, An action item I took away from the last meeting was to frame a request to the staff to collect the various requirements for a new Whois service tool or set of tools. In thinking about it, I decide that perhaps this should be a a formal request and should be done in the form of a motion. I have included a first draft of such a motion below. Please send comments. I plan to add it to the agenda for our next meeting. thanks a. Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment, and, that there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations, and, new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community, resolved, The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives such as tiered services and privacy protection. The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC and the ccNSO and should be ready for community discussion in time for the Sydney meeting.

4 4

RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
by Tim Ruiz April 7, 2009

April 7, 2009

Where does this fall priority wise within the plethora of issues we and staff are already dealing with right now? Seems we should be making some either/or types of decisions at this point in time. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 11:51 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, An action item I took away from the last meeting was to frame a request to the staff to collect the various requirements for a new Whois service tool or set of tools. In thinking about it, I decide that perhaps this should be a a formal request and should be done in the form of a motion. I have included a first draft of such a motion below. Please send comments. I plan to add it to the agenda for our next meeting. thanks a. Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment, and, that there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations, and, new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community, resolved, The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives such as tiered services and privacy protection. The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC and the ccNSO and should be ready for community discussion in time for the Sydney meeting.

2 1

Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
by Avri Doria April 7, 2009

April 7, 2009

Hi, An action item I took away from the last meeting was to frame a request to the staff to collect the various requirements for a new Whois service tool or set of tools. In thinking about it, I decide that perhaps this should be a a formal request and should be done in the form of a motion. I have included a first draft of such a motion below. Please send comments. I plan to add it to the agenda for our next meeting. thanks a. Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment, and, that there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations, and, new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community, resolved, The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives such as tiered services and privacy protection. The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC and the ccNSO and should be ready for community discussion in time for the Sydney meeting.

2 1

Re: Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
by William Drake April 7, 2009

April 7, 2009

From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: April 7, 2009 8:55:46 AM PDT To: liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org >, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure Dear Denise, We appreciate your attempt to elaborate on the position you've taken, but in doing so you reinforce the view that you are no longer operating as a facilitator of the GNSO reform process, but rather as a dedicated advocate of a particular position. I really don't understand why you are involved in this discussion at this level. It is not your job to make policy decisions for the Board and it is not our task to convince you personally of the desirability of a particular GNSO structure. It is rather an issue to be settled among the stakeholders themselves and by the Board. The Board has proposals before it. Let the Board decide whether it likes them or not. Despite the length of your response, its substance can be boiled down into two simple points: 1) The GNSO Improvements Report indicates that constituencies should remain an important part of the reformed GNSO; 2) The Board has not given you specific instructions to change the assignment of Council seats to constituencies. Both of those points are true, yet neither justifies the position you are taking. 1) Constituencies can be an important and even central part of the GNSO process without being guaranteed a specific number of Council seats. Please note that the NCSG charter we submitted actually makes it easier to form constituencies - precisely because it detaches them from Council seat assignments. So in that respect, our proposal is more in line with the GNSO Improvement Report's references to "expanding Constituency involvement" and to "evening the playing field" among constituencies. 2) The absence of specific instructions applies in both directions. We recognize that the Board has not told you to do what we are proposing. But we also know that the position we are advocating is not ruled out by the GNSO Improvements Report, either. This means is it is an open issue. We should debate it and discuss it among ourselves, on the merits. We have had many discussions with Board members and none of them have suggested that what we are proposing is inconsistent with the GNSO Improvements principles. It is interesting that your responses keep ignoring the many, obvious problems that are posed by hardwiring Council seats to Constituencies. These include: the difficulty of achieving balanced geographic representation; the problem that occurs when the number of constituencies exceeds the number of seats; the fact that forming new constituencies becomes a zero-sum game that obstructs consensus. That is not an exhaustive list. Also, you seem not to understand a critical part of the BGC's recommendations, which is that working groups - not the Council - will formulate policy. It is the development of consensus in WGs - not the representation of votes in a legislative process - that is the objective of the Board's reforms. We hope you will be able to recognize these problems, and allow the stakeholder groups and the board the opportunity to work through the issues in the "bottom up" process we read about in so many ICANN press releases.. Thank you. Sincerely, Robin Gross, NCUC Chair on behalf of NCUC Executive Committee and GNSO Council: Norbert Klein Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza Mary Wong William Drake Carlos Afonso Horacio Cadiz Georg Greve Robert Guerra Dave Kissoondoyal *********************************************************** 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