August 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / next call
by Stéphane Van Gelder 20 Aug '09

20 Aug '09

Avri, Not being in the OSC operations WT but having an interest in the topic, I will reply to a few points made in this thread if you will allow just one more incursion in this mailing list... I am however copying the Council list as I see this as a long term issue, and one which the Council will have to address. On the points raised by Liz, as I suggested before I think a kind of test-run could be tried on selected WGs or DTs to start with, as long as the aim is to find a solution to the problem as a whole. More generally, Liz is absolutely right to point out that organising meetings in timezones outside the US will place a burden on ICANN's US-centric staff. That is absolutely something that we must think about, but it's also something that serves to highlight the US-centric problem even more. Because ICANN has limited staff outside of the US, it will find it hard to provide support for those volunteers in the SOs and ACs that are from other timezones. We therefore seem to be hitting against a contradiction in the ICANN model, which on the one hand strives towards maximum regional representation (just look at the diversity of volunteers on the Council and in any other ICANN structure, or look at the work done on geo regions for instance), but on the other hand doesn't have the logistics to back that up. There is no doubt in my mind that if we are to try to make volunteers' life easier when they are outside the "convenient" US or European regions, we will also need to find ways to have those volunteers adequately supported by ICANN staff. An interested discussion, and one which we obviously need to give a lot more thought to before we are able to suggest workable solutions. Thanks, Stéphane Le 19/08/09 21:45, « Avri Doria » <avri(a)psg.com> a écrit : > Hi, > > I see two issues here. > > One a short term problem in terms of the Restructuring DT meeting - > which I am still not convinced we need, but willing to follow the lead > of others on. On this I am still wondering if there isn't some time > that works for all that does not fall into the 12-5 am time zone for > anyone. > > And second is the general problem. In terms of the general problem I > suggest we throw it into the appropriate Work Team for discussion (WG > WT or OSC Operations WT) and not use the meeting notification mailing > list to try and work it out adhoc. > > thanks > > a. > > > On 19 Aug 2009, at 15:29, Liz Gasster wrote: > >> All, >> >> I¹m short on ³solutions² so far, but I do have four questions about >> how the idea endorsed by Kristina and Stéphane would work: >> >> 1. Would it apply to all working groups the Council proposes >> to have essentially double calls for all working groups? Many >> working groups have little Asia-Pacific representation today >> (though it is possible that Asia-Pacific participation might >> increase if we schedule calls at more convenient times for those >> participants). >> 2. I gather that staff would be expected to produce notes and/ >> or a recording following the ³first² call in time for participants >> to prepare by reading those notes or listening to the recording of >> the first call prior to the second call on the same or next day. Is >> this a correct understanding? >> 3. Currently the Policy group has no staff in the Asia Pacific >> region. Staff are assigned to working groups by issue so that we can >> develop expertise and an understanding of the substance of each >> working group. Kristina suggested that the same staff person be >> cover both calls (for particular regions) on a particular topic, I >> assume to preserve this continuity. I am not sure how staff could >> manage the hours implied in that suggestion without sharing >> responsibilities for working groups or working excessive hours on a >> regular basis. I may be missing the thought about how this >> arrangement would work. >> 4. Would working groups ever meet as a whole? I am concerned >> that it will be even more difficult to coordinate writing tasks and >> consensus-building when calls are conducted serially, and that as a >> practical matter staff would assume a go-between role in >> coordinating documents and work deliverables with two sets of >> individuals who would only communicate with each other ³on list². >> Would two sets of action items be maintained? Would documents that >> staff agreed to update, revise or change on one call need to be >> complete for review by the second group? How would disagreements and >> decisions be addressed? Should working group processes be developed >> to cover such a working environment (like for example by the Working >> Groups Work Team of the PPSC)? >> >> We would very much like to accommodate a workable arrangement, just >> thinking through the logistics. >> >> Thanks! Liz >> >> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@icann.org >> ] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:17 AM >> To: cgomes(a)verisign.com; krosette(a)cov.com; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com >> ; adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au; Gisella Gruber-White; >> ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> >> Rotating times with the schedule set at least a month or two in >> advance. That is the only way in which everyone will have notice and >> everyone will have the same amount of "pain". That combined with >> more work being done on the lists. >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >> Vice President, Law & Policy >> NeuStar, Inc. >> Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz >> >> From: Gomes, Chuck >> To: Neuman, Jeff; krosette(a)cov.com ; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com ; >> adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au >> ; Gisella.Gruber-White(a)icann.org ; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org >> Sent: Wed Aug 19 11:47:41 2009 >> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> Disagreement is good Jeff but it would be helpful if you provided an >> alternative to deal with the scheduling problem. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:22 AM >> To: krosette(a)cov.com; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com; Gomes, Chuck; >> adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au >> ; Gisella.Gruber-White(a)icann.org; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> >> I actually do not support this proposal. The election of chairs and >> vice chairs needs to be skills based, not geographical. recommending >> this approach is ok, requiring it will create more problems than it >> will solve. Its tough enough to get volunteers for chair positions, >> but adding a geography requirement seems impossible to implement. >> >> That's just my opinion. >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >> Vice President, Law & Policy >> NeuStar, Inc. >> Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz >> >> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> To: Stéphane Van Gelder ; Gomes, Chuck ; Adrian Kinderis ; Gisella >> Gruber-White ; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: GNSO Secretariat >> Sent: Wed Aug 19 11:10:51 2009 >> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> Sounds like a plan to me. (Only suggestion would be to make clear >> that one vice-chair could be from Africa/Asia/Australia/Pacific and >> the other from North America/Latin America/Caribbean/Europe.) >> >> >> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:26 AM >> To: Rosette, Kristina; Gomes, Chuck; Adrian Kinderis; Gisella Gruber- >> White; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: GNSO Secretariat >> Subject: Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> >> Indeed, a very good idea Kristina. >> >> How about 2 vice-chairs and no chairs as SOP for all WGs and DTs? >> One vice-chair from Europe or USA. One from Asia Pac or other region >> in same timezone. Staff responsible for supplying vice-chairs with >> the summaries and briefs they need to coordinate the group¹s work >> (ie notes from the other timezone meeting). Meetings could then be >> held on the same day, but at different times according to the >> relevant timezones. That way, the actual group¹s work does not get >> delayed by the dual meeting system. >> >> I would also suggest this method initially NOT be used for the full >> Council meetings. I do not see how attendance at these meetings can >> be split while still retaining a functioning Council. This method >> could be evaluated on WGs and DTs and then, after a period, applied >> elsewhere if it proves effective. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> Le 19/08/09 16:14, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette(a)cov.com> a écrit : >> >> That's what I was thinking. Will probably require increased staff >> support to maximize efficiency and decrease amount of chair >> coordination time. >> >> >> >> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:12 AM >> To: Rosette, Kristina; Stéphane Van Gelder; Adrian Kinderis; >> Gisella Gruber-White; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: GNSO Secretariat >> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> >> >> >> Interesting idea Kristina. It would then be easier for the two co- >> chairs to find a time to talk to one another and coordinate their >> schedules than it would be for the whole group. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> >> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:07 AM >> To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder; Adrian Kinderis; Gisella >> Gruber-White; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: GNSO Secretariat >> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> >> >> >> Why not have either two chairs or a chair and vice-chair for each >> WG/DT, require that one be from USA/Europe and the other from Asia >> Pacific, have each be responsible for respective meetings and >> coordinate, with significant staff support (one person who would be >> responsible for attending all)? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@icann.org >> ] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:46 AM >> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Adrian Kinderis; Gisella Gruber-White; >> ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: GNSO Secretariat >> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> >> >> >> Thanks for the feedback Stephane. Let's keep brainstorming. We >> really do need to find something or some things that work. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> >> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:21 AM >> To: Gomes, Chuck; Adrian Kinderis; Gisella Gruber-White; >> ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: GNSO Secretariat >> Subject: Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> >> >> I agree that multiple options need to be explored and that the >> current status quo is detrimental to a GNSO Council that functions >> well. >> >> I am not sure that scheduling two meetings to cover the same >> subject matter is a good idea however. As you point out, this would >> mean that some people would have to cover both meetings and I >> suspect we would end up with the same people doing all the work >> once again, which would place an unfair burden on them. I think >> this idea can only work if both meetings are attended by, and run >> by, two completely different sets of people (eg. one set from the >> USA/Europe regions and the other from Asia Pac). This however then >> may cause organisational problems as the work done in both meetings >> would need to be homogenised and streamlined. >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> Le 18/08/09 13:49, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes(a)verisign.com> a écrit : >> >> >> We haven't made much progress at all in solving this problem and I >> believe it is reasonable to expect that it will get worse not >> better going forward. So it seems to me that we need to come up >> with some new approaches that we haven't considered yet. >> >> If we eliminate all times between 11 pm and 6 am for all >> participants in a given meeting and if their are participants from >> every geographic region, I don't think any time would work. So it >> is no wonder that simply doing Doodles doesn't work. >> >> We have tried rotating times of meetings so that different >> participants are negatively impacted at least every other meeting. >> This seems fairer to all but makes scheduling more difficult. It >> still may be one of the steps we can take quickly to at least >> spread the pain around, especially for the most important meetings >> such as Council calls as Philip suggested, . >> >> It would be nice if there was an ideal solution, but I don't >> believe there is one, so I think we need to explore multiple options. >> >> One root cause of the problem we are trying to solve is that we >> have not yet developed the discipline to work productively using >> electronic means instead of live meetings. So I think we need to >> focus more attention on exploring ways that we could increase >> efficiencies using electronic means to work on policy. We have >> experimented with some tools and they have helped a little but they >> haven't really decreased our dependence on live meetings. This >> topic fits well in the GNSO Council Operations Work Team charter >> but it may be awhile before they can focus on it so It might be a >> good idea to form a small group to focus on this sooner. Such a >> group could explore tools and methodologies used by others and >> develop some concrete recommendations. I am sure that ICANN Policy >> Staff could be of great assistance on this. >> >> In the near term though, I suspect that we will continue to need >> live meetings. We also want to be totally open and have as diverse >> participation as possible but that exasperates the scheduling >> challenge for live meetings. How can we expand diversity of >> participation while minimizing scheduling difficulties? Larger >> groups tend to cause more scheduling difficulties. Could we >> organize large groups into smaller groups that meet separately and >> intentionally structure the small groups so that the various time >> zones represented are more homogeneous? To accomplish this we >> probably would need to consciously consider time zone practicality >> when forming the small groups. If we were successful, the small >> groups could then more readily develop policy approaches for >> consideration by the larger group electronically. I think this >> goes along with Philip's suggestion of division of >> responsibilities. An approach along this line seems to fit into the >> mission of the Working Group Model team but maybe we could develop >> some of the concepts before they are able to get to it. >> >> One thing that is not acceptable is to continue the way we have >> been. We have been trying for weeks to schedule a meeting for the >> Restructing Drafting Team meeting without success and it is >> critical that that team meet quickly to resolve several remaining >> issues. To solve this immediate problem, I suggest we hold two >> meetings at different times that cover the same agenda. That would >> require a few of us to participate in both meetings but I think we >> could keep that to a minimum. It also would require that the a >> summary of key points and issues of the first meeting be prepared >> quickly and distributed in advance of the second meeting. After >> both meetings, it might be possible to finish most of our work >> online. >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@icann.org >> ] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis >> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:19 PM >> To: Gisella Gruber-White; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: GNSO Secretariat >> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / >> next call >> >> >> >> >> >> I have completed the Doodle (but I am not sure why I bother). >> >> >> >> For the record, whilst I am of course interested in participating >> (and it is my duty as a Councillor) I will continually reject >> meeting times that impact my ability to perform my work at 100% >> (i.e. I will not participate in any calls between 11pm and 6am >> local time). >> >> >> >> >> >> Adrian Kinderis >> Chief Executive Officer >> >> AusRegistry International Pty Ltd >> Level 8, 10 Queens Road >> Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 >> Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 >> Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 >> Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> >> Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> >> >> >> >> - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: >> www.twitter.com/ausregistryint >> <http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint> >> >> >> >> >> >> The information contained in this communication is intended for >> the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may >> contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you >> are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute >> or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this >> communication in error, please delete all copies from your system >> and notify us immediately. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@icann.org >> ] On Behalf Of Gisella Gruber-White >> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:56 AM >> To: ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org >> Cc: GNSO Secretariat; Gisella Gruber-White >> Subject: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / next >> call >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> In order to schedule the next GNSO Council Restructuring drafting >> team, please complete the attached Doodle poll. >> >> http://www.doodle.com/2c8xaadq6v8wpbx3 >> >> We will confirm the date and time once everyone has completed this. >> >> The poll will close on Wednesday at 1200 UTC. >> >> Thank you >> Kind regards >> Gisella >> >> ---------------------------- >> Gisella Gruber-White >> On behalf of GNSO Secretariat >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: gisella.gruber-white(a)icann.org >> Tel: +44 7545 334 360 >> Skype ID: gisella.gw >> >> > >

1 0

Public Comment: Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Retreat
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Aug '09

20 Aug '09

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18aug09-en.htm Public Comment: Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Retreat 18 August 2009 ICANN's Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) is proposing to hold a retreat 30 September - 1 October 2009. The retreat would inform SSAC members, and help the committee prioritize its activities and prepare a work plan. SSAC would appreciate receiving input on the proposed retreat, including substantive items you think merit SSAC attention. In particular, SSAC requests comments on the proposed topics for the retreat: 1) SSAC Operations and Coordination SSAC Charter, Member Roles, Workflow SSAC Review Outcomes, Engagement with ICANN Bodies 2) Substantive/Informational Issues Registrant Protection & Abusive Behavior DNS as an Attack Vector SSAC/ICANN Role in Routing Root Server System Robustness & its Future Security & Stability of the Internet (Gaming & Structural Issues with ICANN Rules) In addition, to assist the SSAC in long-term planning and operational efficiencies, SSAC solicits comments on other issues that might be useful to discuss in depth at the retreat. The SSAC welcomes these and other comments on the proposed retreat. The Process from Here SSAC will review and consider the comments submitted as part of its final planning and retreat proposal. Deadline and How to Submit Comments Opens: 18 August 09 Closes: 8 September 09 To submit comments: Please send via email to ssac-retreat-2009(a)icann.org To view comments: An archive of all comments is posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ssac-retreat-2009 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting
by Tim Ruiz 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

I believe this was the call with study proposers to give an overview of the RFP that would be used to do an analysis of the Subject study. So likely only relevant proposers were invited. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Tue, August 18, 2009 9:54 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, Just found this in the calendar. Was this meeting announced? Did it have an agenda? Was it an open meeting, as all GNSO meetings are unless specifically closed over personal privacy concerns, or was it by invitation only? If I knew of this and it just did not register, I apologize, but I really do not know what it was about. I will listen to the audio, but am looking for some context. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-whois-20090810.mp3 thanks a.

3 4

Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting
by Avri Doria 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

Hi, Just found this in the calendar. Was this meeting announced? Did it have an agenda? Was it an open meeting, as all GNSO meetings are unless specifically closed over personal privacy concerns, or was it by invitation only? If I knew of this and it just did not register, I apologize, but I really do not know what it was about. I will listen to the audio, but am looking for some context. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-whois-20090810.mp3 thanks a.

4 5

Fwd: GAC comments on the new gTLD DAG version 2
by Avri Doria 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Janis Karklins" <janis.karklins(a)icann.org> > Date: 18 August 2009 10:46:27 EDT > To: <ICANN-board(a)icann.org> > Cc: "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)psg.com>, "'Chris Disspain'" > <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, "'GACList'" <gac(a)gac.icann.org> > Subject: GAC comments on the new gTLD DAG version 2 > > Dear Peter, > > Pls find attached the GAC comments on the second version of the new > gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook, as promised during the Sydney meeting. > I hope that these comments will be taken into account during the > elaboration of the next version of the Guidebook. > > Best regards > JK

1 0

Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / next call
by Stéphane Van Gelder 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

I¹m taking this to the Council list because, although Adrian responded to a restructuring DT message, he makes a point which I feel we absolutely must address. I fully understand his reluctance to participate in calls in the middle of the night (Australian time). Our duties as GNSO Councillors already take up a huge amount of time and effort which detracts us from our ³normal² working lives and I don¹t think anyone can be expected to stay up for meetings during at nights or the wee hours of the morning. This is obviously a bigger problem for Asia Pac reps as our meeting times are manageable for Europe or the USA. But it is a problem for the Council as a whole nonetheless, as these are Councillors which are often unable to carry out their duties as much as they would like. I don¹t have a solution to this oft discussed problem, but I just wanted to add my voice of support to Adrian and Councillors who find themselves in the same bind - as long as this support doesn¹t lead to meetings being scheduled at times which are convenient to them but not to us of course ;-) Stéphane Le 18/08/09 03:19, « Adrian Kinderis » <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> a écrit : > I have completed the Doodle (but I am not sure why I bother). > > For the record, whilst I am of course interested in participating (and it is > my duty as a Councillor) I will continually reject meeting times that impact > my ability to perform my work at 100% (i.e. I will not participate in any > calls between 11pm and 6am local time). > > > Adrian Kinderis > Chief Executive Officer > AusRegistry International Pty Ltd > Level 8, 10 Queens Road > Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 > Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 > Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 > Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> > Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> > > - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint > <http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint> > > > The information contained in this communication is intended for the named > recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged > and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must > not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have > received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your > system and notify us immediately. > > > From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gisella > Gruber-White > Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:56 AM > To: ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org > Cc: GNSO Secretariat; Gisella Gruber-White > Subject: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / next call > > Dear All, > > In order to schedule the next GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team, please > complete the attached Doodle poll. > > http://www.doodle.com/2c8xaadq6v8wpbx3 > > We will confirm the date and time once everyone has completed this. > > The poll will close on Wednesday at 1200 UTC. > > Thank you > Kind regards > Gisella > > ---------------------------- > Gisella Gruber-White > On behalf of GNSO Secretariat > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: gisella.gruber-white(a)icann.org > Tel: +44 7545 334 360 > Skype ID: gisella.gw >

3 4

Fwd: Policy Developer Process Work Team - Attendance (resend to fix format in archive)
by Avri Doria 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date: 10 August 2009 11:00:10 EDT > > Subject: RE: Policy Developer Process Work Team - Attendance > > All, > > I have not gotten a response from anyone on this list and am looking > for ideas on how we can improve attendance and participation from > each of the constituencies. > > We had yet another meeting last Thursday and aside from myself and > ICANN staff, only 5 others showed up (2 registrars (Bladel & Diaz), > 1 registry (Maher), an ALAC rep (Greenberg), and Avri in her > personal capacity). There was no rep from the CBUC, ISP, IP or NCUC > constituencies. Please find enclosed an updated chart. Some more > figures to consider: > > Out of the 12 meetings since March 19th: > > · The NCUC rep has attended only 1 meeting (and that was in > early April) > · One of the 2 CBUC members have attended only 7 or the 12 > meetings (none since June) > · Of the 3 IP reps, one of them has only showed up in a > total of only 4 meetings (None since May) > · An ISP rep has shown up for 7 of 12 meetings > · Registrars Congrats You have attended all of the > meetings and are the model for everyone to follow! > · Registries You have participated in 9 of the 12 meetings. > > Avri, can you please post these results on the GNSO Council website > and make a plea during the next meeting for more participation. > This may include substituting members of constituencies who can no > longer attend or at the very least appointing alternatives. > > Thanks for your help. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error > and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the > original message. > > > > From: Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:34 AM > To: 'Robin Gross'; 'David W. Maher'; 'mike(a)rodenbaugh.com'; Philip > Sheppard; zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com; 'Metalitz, Steven'; 'Mason Cole'; > Avri Doria; 'tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com'; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net > ' > Subject: Policy Developer Process Work Team - Attendance > > All, > > As Chair of the Policy Development Process Work Team, I wanted to > write to you all, as Chairs for your respective constituencies and/ > or nominating committee reps to the GNSO Council, to solicit your > help in getting attendance at our bi-weekly conference calls and > participation on the mailing lists. Although I understand it is > summer and attendance usually goes down, I am attaching a chart that > shows the attendance of the members of the Work Team for the past > several months. A couple of the constituencies have good records, > but most of them are not. Perhaps you can go back to your > respective constituencies to see what you can do to get those that > are signed up to attend, or to find suitable replacements. > > Thanks for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if > there is anything I can do to help you all out. > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 > Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: > +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error > and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the > original message. >

1 0

Fwd: Policy Developer Process Work Team - Attendance
by Avri Doria 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date: 10 August 2009 11:00:10 EDT > To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, "Robin Gross" <robin(a)ipjustice.org > >, "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org>, <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "Philip > Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, <zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com>, > "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com>, "Mason Cole" > <masonc(a)snapnames.com>, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org>, <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com > >, "Olga Cavalli" <olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar>, <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net> > Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org > >, "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings(a)icann.org > >, "Gisella Gruber-White" <Gisella.Gruber-White(a)icann.org> > Subject: RE: Policy Developer Process Work Team - Attendance > > All, > > I have not gotten a response from anyone on this list and am looking > for ideas on how we can improve attendance and participation from > each of the constituencies. > > We had yet another meeting last Thursday and aside from myself and > ICANN staff, only 5 others showed up (2 registrars (Bladel & Diaz), > 1 registry (Maher), an ALAC rep (Greenberg), and Avri in her > personal capacity). There was no rep from the CBUC, ISP, IP or NCUC > constituencies. Please find enclosed an updated chart. Some more > figures to consider: > > Out of the 12 meetings since March 19th: > > · The NCUC rep has attended only 1 meeting (and that was in > early April) > · One of the 2 CBUC members have attended only 7 or the 12 > meetings (none since June) > · Of the 3 IP reps, one of them has only showed up in a > total of only 4 meetings (None since May) > · An ISP rep has shown up for 7 of 12 meetings > · Registrars – Congrats – You have attended all of the > meetings and are the model for everyone to follow! > · Registries – You have participated in 9 of the 12 meetings. > > Avri, can you please post these results on the GNSO Council website > and make a plea during the next meeting for more participation. > This may include substituting members of constituencies who can no > longer attend or at the very least appointing alternatives. > > Thanks for your help. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error > and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the > original message. > > > From: Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:34 AM > To: 'Robin Gross'; 'David W. Maher'; 'mike(a)rodenbaugh.com'; Philip > Sheppard; zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com; 'Metalitz, Steven'; 'Mason Cole'; > Avri Doria; 'tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com'; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net > ' > Subject: Policy Developer Process Work Team - Attendance > > All, > > As Chair of the Policy Development Process Work Team, I wanted to > write to you all, as Chairs for your respective constituencies and/ > or nominating committee reps to the GNSO Council, to solicit your > help in getting attendance at our bi-weekly conference calls and > participation on the mailing lists. Although I understand it is > summer and attendance usually goes down, I am attaching a chart that > shows the attendance of the members of the Work Team for the past > several months. A couple of the constituencies have good records, > but most of them are not. Perhaps you can go back to your > respective constituencies to see what you can do to get those that > are signed up to attend, or to find suitable replacements. > > Thanks for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if > there is anything I can do to help you all out. > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 > Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: > +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error > and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the > original message. >

2 1

Additional topic and motion for this weeks agenda
by Avri Doria 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

Hi, Since I was not able to send the proposed letter on increased travel support due to the absence of consensus, I have added it as an AOB topic to the agenda and have included a possible motion. Since this letter has been on the table and list for consensus consideration for over 2 weeks, I hope that it is acceptable to put it forward for this week's meeting. the motion (as yet not made or seconded): Motion made by: Seconded by: Whereas: The plan is to seat the new council in Seoul, and current council members may not longer be council members at that time Resolved: Send the following letter: Letter to Kevin Wilson, I have been mandated by the GNSO council, by a vote of XX to YY, to request support not only for the members of the new bi-cameral council to be seated at Seoul, but also for those current council members who may not be continuing on the new council due to the reorganization. The reason this request is being made is to provide continuity to the GNSO council at this time of restructuring, reorganization and 'improvement.' Thank you Avri Doria for the GNSO Council -- thanks a.

6 10

RE: [council] Dealing with conflicts
by Tim Ruiz 14 Aug '09

14 Aug '09

2 1