May 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
by Frank Fowlie May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

To Karl and Carlos, I don't believe that there is anything strange or naïve in the expectation that participants in an organization which represents a global community would conduct themselves at a level of discourse and behaviour that includes respectful communication. This is an international forum for debate and discussion, and while no one has the reasonable expectation of Platonic debate, neither do participants want to be involved in name calling and behaviours which more closely resemble a school yard at recess than an international cooperative effort. There is no proposal that any party not vigorously pursue the advocacy of their own position, only that they do so in a manner that is respectful of others. Dr. Frank Fowlie, DCR Ombudsman The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey California, USA, 90292 tel: +310-823-9358 fax: +310-823-8649 www.icannombudsman.org The Values of this Office are: -Respect for Diversity; -Excellence in Ombudsmanship; -Professionalism; -Confidentiality; -Impartiality; -and Independence. ________________________________ From: carlos aguirre Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 06:56:42 -0700 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: RE: [At-Large] Respectful Online Communication and Behavior Dear Karl: Yes, this document sounds to me some (at least) "naive". Specialy at this moment of ICANN history. When I decided reply this, for an instant I thought to say respectfully another strong word, but then I thought in the diversity and cultures and point of view different. In my oppinion we need to see the reality and say in a clear manner how is it. whatever being the words uses. greetings Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar<http://www.sitioderecho.com.ar/> http://ar.ageiadensi.org<http://www.densi.com.ar/> > Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 04:18:38 -0700 > From: karl(a)cavebear.com > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > CC: avri(a)acm.org; janis.karklins(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org; ccnso-council(a)icann.org; louie(a)equinix.com; ceo(a)auda.org.au; cgomes(a)verisign.com; jun(a)wide.ad.jp; steve(a)shinkuro.com; frank.fowlie(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; policy(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Respectful Online Communication and Behavior > > > > ICANN's Ombudsman, Frank Fowlie, recently posted a web page on Respectful > > Online Communication and Behavior > > I must say that I found that to be a rather strange document. > > It posits ICANN as some fantasy world in which disinterested > philosophers discuss and debate. > > That is in hard conflict with the reality of ICANN as a political > cauldron in which deeply antagonistic interests contest with one another > for power and profit. > > Many actors within ICANN could be in violation of the ethical > requirements of their professions were they to trim the sails of their > advocacy on behalf of their clients to conform with that document. > > --karl-- > >_______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ________________________________ ¡Es hora que descubras quién sos! Alguien puede conocerte mejor que vos mismo.<http://www.descubrewindowslive.com/>

3 2

GNSO Council letter to the GAC
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Dear all, In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process. At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday. In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday. The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council¹s Friday deadline and considered my draft ³good to go², with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached). Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday. My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder

4 4

Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
by Rosette, Kristina May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

To be clear: is the support/endorsement of each councilor in her/his individual capacity or representative capacity? Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tue May 12 05:10:21 2009 Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Hi, With this I am starting a 48 hour last call on this letter. a, If there are no substantive comments before 0900 UTC on Thursday 14 May, I will submit this as a letter from the GNSO Council. b. If there are substantive comments that result in changes then 12 hours will be added on to the open call for review of the changes. c. Should there still be unresolvable substantive comments o Friday, then the letter will not be able to go as a note from the GNSO council, but still may be able to go with specific people/ constituencies as signatories. Thanks Stéphane for taking the lead. a. On 12 May 2009, at 10:12, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > Dear all, > > In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to > ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the > new gTLD process. > > At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should > respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed > that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the > end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect > a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday. > > In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I > submitted my draft to the team yesterday. > > The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council’s > Friday deadline and considered my draft “good to go”, with one > addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have > been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full > Council today (see attached). > > Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you > would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send > the finished letter to the GAC on Friday. > > My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri > Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga > Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis – William Drake. > > Best, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > <GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V2.pdf>

2 1

Fwd: Background Report for a Global Policy Proposal regarding recovered IPv4 address space
by Avri Doria May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Begin forwarded message: > From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> > Date: 12 May 2009 13:09:18 GMT+02:00 > > Subject: Background Report for a Global Policy Proposal regarding > recovered IPv4 address space > > To Chairs of ICANN SOs and ACs, > FYI and for information to your membership: > > In response to a request from the ICANN Board on 23 April 2009, the > attached Background Report has been prepared for a proposal named > “Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to > Regional Internet Registries”, currently under discussion in the > addressing community. > > In short, the policy proposal is intended to replace the current > policy for IPv4 allocations when the IANA free pool has been > exhausted, by governing allocation of recovered IPv4 blocks that > have been returned to the IANA. It would also have an effect prior > to the exhaustion date, by appointing IANA to act as a repository > for any recovered address blocks returned by the RIRs to the IANA > during that period. > > The background report will soon be posted on the ICANN website. > > Very best regards > Olof > > -------------------------- > Olof Nordling > Director, Services Relations > ICANN > 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 > B-1040 Brussels, Belgium > Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 > www.icann.org > >

1 0

Fwd: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
by Avri Doria May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

hi, One suggestion received from a reader of the list: a. Begin forwarded message: > it would be most helpful to have a one-page appendix that simply > copies and pastes the implementation guidances and recommendations > that are cited in the letter. Saves time for the reader.

1 0

GAC Letter
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Dear all, As discussed during our call last week, I have prepared a draft response to the GAC letter on the subject of protecting geographic names in the new gTLD program. However rather than sending this early draft to the Council¹s public list, I was thinking of asking Glen to create a quick DT email list so that we could refine the draft before sending it to the Council list. Would anyone object to this? If this is OK with everyone, who would want to be on the list? Olga has already contacted me to volunteer. Anyone else? If the list can be set up today or early tomorrow, I can then send the draft to the list with the aim of having a refined draft ready by mid-week. Stéphane

6 7

Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
by Denise Michel May 11, 2009

May 11, 2009

Dear ICANN Community Leaders and Members: ICANN's Ombudsman, Frank Fowlie, recently posted a web page on Respectful Online Communication and Behavior: <http://icann.org/ombudsman/respectful-communication-en.htm>. This page emphasizes the importance of respectful communication in ICANN, particularly in this phase of its development as an international organization: "Members of the community are asked to bear in mind that fellow community members, volunteers, stakeholders, and staff members are all deserving of considerate treatment. Members of the community are asked to bear in mind that the diversity of thought, and diversity of participants, in this unique - bottom up - consensus driven - multilingual and multicultural organization is ICANN’s strength." ICANN's Standard of Behaviour also can be found on this page, and is included below for easy reference. I know some community leaders are discussing how to further encourage and enforce these standards within their community. Please don't hesitate to contact ICANN Staff if there is anything we can do to assist with this endeavor. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development policy-staff(a)icann.org *ICANN EXPECTED STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR* "Those who take part in ICANN multi-stakeholder process including Board, staff and all those involved in Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee councils undertake to: Act in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. In particular, participants undertake to act within the mission of ICANN and in the spirit of the values contained in the Bylaws. Adhere to the conflict of interest policy laid out in the Bylaws. Treat all members of the ICANN community equally, irrespective of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the ICANN community should treat each other with civility both face to face and online. Act in a reasonable and informed manner when participating in policy development and decision-making processes. This includes regularly attending all scheduled meetings and exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment. Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view. Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants. Act in accordance with ICANN policies. Protect the organization's assets and ensure their efficient and effective use. Act fairly and in good faith with other participants in the ICANN process."

1 0

Final vote on motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Glen de Saint Géry May 11, 2009

May 11, 2009

Dear Councillors Absentee voting is closed on the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, proposed by Avri Doria, and seconded by Chuck Gomes. The final results are as follows: 25 votes in favour 20 Votes in favour cast during the meeting: Cyril Chua, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each) Absentee ballots received from: 5 Votes in favour Philip Sheppard, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Adrian Kinderis (two votes) Absent from voting: Greg Ruth, Tony Holmes (2 votes) Motion I Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes 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 for this PDP should instruct the Working Group: that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and that it should specifically consider 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. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

GAC letter on Geographic Names
by Zahid Jamil May 10, 2009

May 10, 2009

Of much concern to me is: "In relation to potential misuse of the respective names on the second level: In the event that a government or relevant public authority (or the GAC) notifies ICANN that there is misuse of any second level domain name in relation to the provisions of article 2 of the GAC principles, ICANN shall notify the registry and request the suspension of the said name pending the withdrawal of the objection by the relevant government. GAC considers that the respect for such provisions and procedures needs to be a contractual obligation on the part of the registry." So government or 'relevant public authority' get a complete veto over any domain name and there isn't even a the possibility of a dispute resolution process. So governments or 'relevant public authority''s could abuse this. this is not transparent. 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.

2 1

Report to board
by Avri Doria May 9, 2009

May 9, 2009

Hi Rob, I did not go back to the recording, but if I remember correctly you mentioned that you would be sending a report to the Board on the status of restructuring and 'improvements'. If there is a report, would it be possible for the council to receive a copy of this report? thanks a.

1 0