July 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies
by Tim Ruiz 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

How do we define *conflict of interest.* For example, if we define it the same way the Board does we may have to exclude entire constituencies from the majority of Council votes. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, July 15, 2009 8:15 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Stephane, The problems you describe need to be dealt with but I believe it is possible to do so in an effective and transparent manner. In other words, I think they are solvable. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:40 AM > To: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of > interest - proxies > > > Hi Bruce, > > Both you and Chuck make interesting points. Especially in the > light of recent discussions we've had in the Council about > how Councillors can best represent the views of their > constituencies. There's no doubt that if a constituency > instructs its Councillors to vote a certain way on a certain > issue, said Councillors will be put in a very difficult > situation if they have a conflict of interest on that issue. > > One (easy?) way to resolve this might simply be for > Councillors to state that they are voting as instructed by > the constituency and not as a reflection of their own > personal views. This could then be recording in the vote > summary that goes to the Board for instance, or in the > transcript that is made publicly available. > > However, I see several problems. The first one is that > Councillors are generally assumed to vote for their > constituencies anyway, so why stress that fact again? And > what if a Councillor then votes without stating the above, > either because he forgets to, or because he doesn't have > clear instructions from his Constituency? Would people > naturally assume his vote is a reflection of his own personal > views and accuse him or her of putting those first? > > It's a difficult one. > > Stéphane > > > Le 15/07/09 06:01, « Bruce Tonkin » > <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> a écrit : > > > > > Hello Chuck, > > > >> > >> I agree with you that we should consider additional special > >> situations with regard to voting, but we will probably > have to deal > >> with them after we get finished with the huge current workload. > > > > Sounds fair to me - just thought I would mention it, while we are > > considering voting rules. > > > >> It > >> doesn't seem to me that a constituency (or in the future a > >> stakeholder > >> group) should lose a vote because their elected councilor has a > >> personal conflict of interest. > > > > Agreed. But at the same time I do think the issue of personal > > conflicts of interest need to be taken into account. So I think a > > mechanism that allows a constituency to retain their votes, but > > prevents an individual from being put in a difficult > situation is worthwhile. > > > > Another example in the past is how to handle elections to > the Board, > > where a candidate is a sitting Council member. There has been a > > mechanism used in the past where the constituency can > appoint a person > > to vote on behalf of the constituency, in place of the > Council member. > > > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > >

2 1

Public Comment: WIPO Proposal for Modification of UDRP Rules to Allow "Paperless" UDRP Proceedings
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13jul09-en.htm Public Comment: WIPO Proposal for Modification of UDRP Rules to Allow "Paperless" UDRP Proceedings 13 July 2009 The implementation rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) document the procedures for the implementation of UDRP proceedings (http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm). ICANN has received a proposal from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) regarding suggested changes to the implementation rules to allow for a paperless UDRP proceeding, or "eUDRP." WIPO does not propose any changes to the UDRP itself. The WIPO proposal [PDF, 13K] includes an explanation for WIPO's proposal, as well as a redline of the proposed rule changes. WIPO's proposal is being posted for public comment for 30 days to ensure broad community input. Feedback received will be considered in the evaluation of the need to modify the implementation rules to give effect to the specific purpose proposed. Note: The proposal also includes sections relating to proposed changes to WIPO's supplemental rules for the administration of UDRP proceedings. The public comment forum is not intended to address the supplemental rules change issues. Comments regarding WIPO's proposed amendments to the implementation rules maybe submitted by email to: eudrp(a)icann.org through 12 August 2009. Comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/eudrp/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-13jul09-en.htm Public Comment: Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013 13 July 2009 ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 - 2012 - 2013 2011 09-14 October 2011 No. 42 | Africa (Tentative) 19-24 June 2011 No. 41 | Asia (Tentative) 13-18 March 2011 No. 40 | North America (Tentative) 2012 14-19 October 2012 No. 45 | North America (Tentative) 24-29 June 2012 No. 44 | Europe (Tentative) 11-16 March 2012 No. 43 | Latin America (Tentative) 2013 17-22 November 2013 No. 48 | Latin America (Tentative) 14-19 July 2013 No. 47 | Africa (Tentative) 07-12 April 2013 No. 46 | Asia (Tentative) While ICANN continues to examine the overall structure of its meeting dates and geographic rotation, it is important to move forward with future planning. In an effort to secure the dates for ICANN meetings through 2013, Staff recommendations have been developed for Public review and comment. Approving the meeting dates is important to prevent conflicts with other community events and to allow all participants sufficient time to plan their travel and attendance. The proposed dates below have been selected based on careful avoidance of important holidays, celebrations, and observances around the globe. Similarly, every effort was made to identify and prevent scheduling conflicts with other community events. ICANN will not be able to accommodate every request for a date change. However, in an effort to be fully cognizant of holidays and occasions from countries and religions around the world, we'd like to provide an opportunity for comment so the ICANN Public Participation Committee of the Board can move forward with approving the dates. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day public comment forum, from 13 July 2009 through 14 August 2009, and invites community comments on this topic. To submit comments: Comments are welcome via email to proposed-meeting-dates(a)icann.org<mailto:proposed-meeting-dates@icann.org>. This public forum will be open through 14 August 2009. To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/proposed-meeting-dates. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Call times
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Jul '09

14 Jul '09

Dear All, In an effort to provide timely notice for the rotation of the time of the GNSO Council calls, please examine the proposed times below: Proposed times for the GNSO Council calls: 23 July 16:00 UTC 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 CEST, 22:00 Karachi, 00:00 Hong Kong, 02:00 Melbourne 13 August 13:00 UTC 06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 15:00 CEST, 19:00 Karachi, 21:00 Hong Kong, 23:00 Melbourne 3 September 21:00 UTC, 14:00 PDT, 17:00 EDT, 23:00 CEST, 03:00 Karachi, 05:00 Hong Kong, 07:00 Melbourne next day 24 September 13:00 UTC 06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 15:00 CEST, 19:00 Karachi, 21:00 Hong Kong, 23:00 Melbourne 8 October 13:00 UTC 06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 15:00 CEST, 19:00 Karachi, 21:00 Hong Kong, 23:00 Melbourne http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Please feel free to make any suggestions. Thank you for your comments. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)
by William Drake 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

Begin forwarded message: > From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2(a)gmail.com> > Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00 > To: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> > Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws > > I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for > maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my > message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate, > I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the > Board. > > I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary > email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward > this message to the Council list. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Envoyé de mon iPhone > > Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > > a écrit : > >> >> Hi >> >> Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's >> preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that >> differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect >> board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent >> spinning. Tim's approach would be preferable in that context. >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >> >>> >>> Would it be okay to report the vote something like this: >>> >>> 13 Votes in favor: >>> Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes >>> Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes >>> Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote >>> etc. >>> >>> 1 Vote against: >>> Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote >>> >>> Abstained: >>> Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement >>> William Drake (NCUC) Statement >>> >>> Not present: >>> Philip Sheppard (CBUC) >>> Anthony Harris (ISPC) >>> etc. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws >>> From: "Anthony Harris" <harris(a)cabase.org.ar> >>> Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am >>> To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'" >>> <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we >>> have known it, you may see your way to >>> accomodating this rather simple request from >>> three of the existing constituencies. >>> >>> I beleive that all of us are trying to get the >>> restructuring process "right", and certain >>> issues are important to some rather than to >>> others. I think the Board deserves to be >>> aware of this. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Tony Harris >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> >>> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM >>> Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Avri, >>>> this request is about transparency and relevance. >>>> It is a formal request from the BC. >>>> Philip >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> ***********************************************************

5 7

RE: [council] Council vote on by-laws
by Tim Ruiz 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

Would it be okay to report the vote something like this: 13 Votes in favor: Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote etc. 1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote Abstained: Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement William Drake (NCUC) Statement Not present: Philip Sheppard (CBUC) Anthony Harris (ISPC) etc. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws From: "Anthony Harris" <harris(a)cabase.org.ar> Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Avri, Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we have known it, you may see your way to accomodating this rather simple request from three of the existing constituencies. I beleive that all of us are trying to get the restructuring process "right", and certain issues are important to some rather than to others. I think the Board deserves to be aware of this. Thank you. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws > > > Avri, > this request is about transparency and relevance. > It is a formal request from the BC. > Philip > >

2 1

Updated motion for 9 July
by Avri Doria 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

Hi, The motion that was made by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes on 24 June and deferred due to constituencies needing more time to review, has been updated in: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?09_july_motions to refer to the draft of the bylaws as posted by the Staff in: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200907.html#gnso-rest… . It currently reads: By-Law Changes (deferred from 24 June 2009) Motion made by: Avri Doria Seconded by: Chuck Gomes Whereas On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan to restructuring of the GNSO; and On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee was open to council members as well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO Committee of the Whole; and On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole. Resolved The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws related to the GNSO council be amended to read as documented in: http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clea…

6 8

Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
by Cyril Chua 10 Jul '09

10 Jul '09

I second Kristina Kind regards, Cyril Chua Partner -------- ATMD Bird & Bird LLP 39 Robinson Road #07-01, Robinson Point, Singapore 068911 Tel: (65) 6534 5266 / Fax: (65) 6223 8762 / DID: (65) 6428 9812 http://www.twobirds.com ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Jul 10 21:07:51 2009 Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws On behalf of the IPC, I support Philip's request. K 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: Fri Jul 10 04:07:36 2009 Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws Avri, in explaining to the Board the Council vote on the by-laws please ensure you capture the following: 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour. In this particular subject matter, this information is relevant. Thank you. Philip -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATMD Bird & Bird LLP is a Singapore law practice registered as a limited liability partnership in Singapore with registration number T08LL0001K. The firm is associated with Bird & Bird, an international legal practice. It is solely a Singapore law practice and is not an affiliate, branch or subsidiary of Bird & Bird or Bird & Bird LLP. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message (including attachments) contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not to take any action in reliance on it nor to disseminate, distribute, publish or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please accept our apologies, delete all copies from your system and notify us at mailto:atmdmail@twobirds.com . Unless it relates to the official business of ATMD Bird & Bird LLP, any opinions or matters expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
by Rosette, Kristina 10 Jul '09

10 Jul '09

On behalf of the IPC, I support Philip's request. K 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: Fri Jul 10 04:07:36 2009 Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws Avri, in explaining to the Board the Council vote on the by-laws please ensure you capture the following: 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour. In this particular subject matter, this information is relevant. Thank you. Philip

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 9 July 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry 09 Jul '09

09 Jul '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 Thursday, 9 July, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090709.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#july Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0