May 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Topic for Sunday night Dinner in Sydney
by Avri Doria 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

Hi, I am planning to start a doodle poll on the topic for the Board, Policy Staff, GNSO Council Dinner. Some possible topics I have are: - Pending issue in restructuring - overarching issue for new gTLDs - IRT - overarching issue for new gTLDs - geographic names any other topics i should include in the list of choices for the poll? thanks a.

8 14

GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
by Glen de Saint Géry 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '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-28may09-en.htm GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names 28 May 2009 On 26 May 2009, the GAC submitted a final letter [PDF, 72K] http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-en.pdf responding to the ICANN Board's concerns about the ability to implement the provisions of article 2 of the GAC Principles regarding new gTLDs, particularly paragraph 2.71. The letter recommends, as a minimum, that the names contained in three internationally recognised lists must be reserved at the second level at no cost to governments of all new gTLDs. However, other issues relating to geographic names at the top level and the potential misuse of the respective names at the second level requires further discussion. The GAC's letter is in response to the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution, and subsequent letter from ICANN of 17 March, 2009 seeking GAC members input on possible options to resolve the outstanding implementation issues regarding the protection of geographic names at the second level (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#08 and http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-karklins-17mar09-en.pdf) [PDF, 245K]. The GAC provided an interim response to this request on 24 April 2009 http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf [PDF, 95K]. On 15 May 2009, the GNSO Council provided comments on the proposal outlined in the GAC's letter of 24 April 2009, http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-ltr-to-gac.pdf [PDF, 69K]. The Board requested a final report from the GAC by 25 May, 2009 and which will now be published 29 May, 2009. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-24apr09-en.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

8 10

ICANN Expense Analysis: by Stakeholder Interest Area
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 May '09

31 May '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-3-29may09-en.htm ________________________________ ICANN Expense Analysis: by Stakeholder Interest Area 29 May 2009 As one important element of transparency and accountability, ICANN strives to publish meaningful, accessible financial and operational information. Through its history, ICANN has consistently increased its financial reporting. Within the last 24 months, for example, ICANN developed monthly dashboard reporting on financial data. Earlier this year, the dashboard started to provide financial information by primary functions. See http://forms.icann.org/idashboard/public/. In response to community requests to view ICANN’s expenses in reports more aligned with stakeholder interest areas, ICANN has developed a new financial report: Expense Area Group (EAG) reporting. The categories depicted in this view of ICANN’s budget are based on ICANN’s organizational structure. http://www.icann.org/en/structure/ The attached paper<http://www.icann.org/en/financials/eag-analysis-29may09-en.pdf> [PDF, 272K] http://www.icann.org/en/financials/eag-analysis-29may09-en.pdf describes the Expense Area Group reporting, the analysis and methodology used to create these reports, and more information on cost accounting at ICANN. This new EAG reporting is simply one more view of ICANN’s finances, equal in importance with a functional representation, or a representation by ICANN’s accounting codes. In fact, no single representation captures the fundamentally interconnected nature of ICANN’s work and mission. ICANN is responsible for coordinating the Internet’s unique identifiers at a global level, which is only possible when all of ICANN’s organizational structures are working with each other, and on a global basis. Still, this EAG analysis should provide another useful way to understand the totality of ICANN’s financial operation. The community is encouraged to provide feedback on this new financial report, to help ensure that this type of reporting is responsive to the needs of the community. A comment period has been opened for feedback on the Expense Area Group reporting at this online forum<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200906.html#eag-feedb…> and will remain open until after the Sydney meeting. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: IRT Final Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 May '09

31 May '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-4-29may09-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment: IRT Final Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs 29 May 2009 The Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) posted its Final Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-final-report-trademark-protect…> [PDF, 300K]. The IRT (Members of the IRT are listed here<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/attachment…> [PDF, 88K]) was formed by ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency in accordance with the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm). The resolution was in response to the request by the community seeking solutions for potential issues for trademark holders in the implementation of new gTLDs. The team reflects experiential and geographic diversity and is comprised of 18 members and two alternates. The IRT team participated in numerous teleconferences and several face-to-face meetings in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, California, over a two month period. The resulting recommendations report on Trademark Protection Issues identifies several proposed solutions, including: * IP Clearinghouse, Globally Protected Marks List and associated Rights Protection Mechanisms, and standardized pre-launch rights protection mechanisms; * Uniform Rapid Suspension System; * Post delegation dispute resolution mechanisms; * Whois requirements for new TLDs; and * Use of algorithm in string confusion review during initial evaluation. In the process of developing its recommendations, the IRT consulted with WIPO and the broader community, and evaluated the public comments received in response to the posting of the Draft IRT Report<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-draft-report-trademark-protect…> [PDF, 431K] on 24 April, 2009. These comments are posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/. In addition, several community members who had submitted substantive comments and proposals on trademark protection in new TLDs were invited to participate in the IRT meeting held on 11 May, 2009 in San Francisco. This Final IRT Report will be posted for a thirty (30) day comment period<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200906.html#irt-report> that closes on 29 June, 2009. Comments can be sent to irt-final-report(a)icann.org<mailto:irt-final-report@icann.org> and reviewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report. The community will have additional opportunity to discuss the IRT proposal in an open forum discussion at the Sydney Meeting and in public consultations to be scheduled in July and August 2009. These consultations will take place in diverse geographic regions, and will provide a forum for ICANN to hear from the community on the effectiveness of proposals that address the overarching issues submitted by the IRT and others. For additional information: WIKI for Overarching Issues discussions: https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?new_gtld_overarc…. New gTLD Page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm. ________________________________ Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine<http://www.icann.org/magazine/>

1 0

Preliminary Report - Resolutions of Special Board Meeting - 21 May 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry 30 May '09

30 May '09

Dear Councillors, The Preliminary Report - Resolutions of Special Board Meeting - 21 May 2009 is posted at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-21may09.htm [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] Thank you. Kind regards. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Ask a Question Direct to the Board in Sydney
by Glen de Saint Géry 29 May '09

29 May '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-2-28may09-en.htm Ask a Question Direct to the Board in Sydney 28 May 2009 An online question box where community members can ask questions directly to the ICANN Board and staff has opened today. The question box will take questions until Wednesday 17 June in preparation for the public forum at ICANN's international public meeting in Sydney on Thursday 25 June. Anyone can ask up to two questions or 50 words in length. The question can cover any topic related to ICANN and its work. Answers will be provided either during the public forum or emailed and published in the weeks following the meeting. You can find the form below as well as on the Sydney meeting website, the blog, and the public participation website. Mexico City experience The question box was attempted for the first time in Mexico City in March 2009 as a way to allow remote participants to ask questions directly of ICANN's Board and staff for the Sydney meeting. It was also open to those that were attending the meeting in person but felt uncomfortable asking a question at the public microphone. The box was very popular, eliciting 96 questions from 36 individuals. Answers to every question were then published on ICANN's main website, the blog and the Mexico City meeting site. Through the experience three changes have been made this time around: * Questions have been limited to two per person (the most that people in the physical public forum typically ask) * Permissible question length has been extended from 30 to 50 words to give people more room to frame a question * The deadline have been brought forward by a week to give staff and Board more time to go through the questions and prepare answers Related links Sydney question box: http://icann.wufoo.com/forms/sydney-question-box/ Full response to Mexico City question box: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/mexico-city-public-forum-response.htm Sydney question box Do you have a question you wish to ask at the public forum in Sydney on Thursday 25 June? Maybe you cannot physically attend ICANN's meeting in Mexico City meeting or you don't wish to queue up to a public microphone. Well in that case, please provide us with your question here before end of day Wednesday 17 June and we will make sure it is asked and that you receive an answer. Please fill in each of the boxes below and you will receive a confirmation that your question has been received. · Name * First Last · Email * We will email you with a summary of the overall public comment periods complete with answers to questions from the staff and/or Board within a few weeks of the end of the meeting. · Affiliation * Please tell us who you represent, whether an organization or as an individual · Which topic does your question or comment most closely relate to? * APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK / NEW gTLDs IDNs / Fast Track Independent Reviews DNSSEC Improving Institutional Confidence ICANN as an organization Public participation Registrars / RAA Other We will use this information to help group questions together during the meeting itself. · Please write your question or comment here. Only two questions allowed per person: * Must be between 5 and 50 words. Currently Used: 0 words. Please add your question and/or comment in this box and hit "Ask your question". The space is limited to 50 words in order to keep it concise and allow everyone the opportunity to comment. · Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GAC Letter on Geographic Names
by Gomes, Chuck 29 May '09

29 May '09

The GAC final letter to the Board regarding geographic names at the second level was posted a short while ago: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-en.pdf. I am confused about a key statement that says, "the GAC understands that our proposal in relation to geographic names at the second level . . is acceptable to the GNSO . . . " What am I missing here? What in our letter led to this conclusion? We didn't even address geographic names at the second level let along say that the GAC proposal was acceptable. Do we need to clarify this? Chuck

3 4

by Zahid Jamil 29 May '09

29 May '09

Having recently used Adobe Connect in the IRT conference calls I would like to recommend it use possibly for GNSO calls as well. It works quite well for presentations / documents 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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.

3 2

MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 28 May, 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 May '09

28 May '09

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 28 May, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090528.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: CBCU request for DNSO restricted funds
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 May '09

28 May '09

Forwarded from: BC Secretariat Dear Michael Regarding the CBUC request for DNSO restricted funds. Below is the request I sent to Kevin Wilson on 27 April. I have also copied the mail to the GNSO Council list. Best wishes Gary Hills CBUC Secretariat ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Kevin With reference to the GNSO resolution: 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. 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. Please find details below for the transfer of funds to the Commercial and Business Users Constituency with immediate effect. Many thanks and best wishes Gary Hills CBUC Secretariat ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Request from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency for transfer of DNSO restricted funds Amount: US$ 3,327.30

1 0