September 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter of the proposed new City Top-Level Domain Constituency submitted by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG. This significant step represents the fourth formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the new GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition which will extend into July. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the Board's review. I have shared a copy of the attached documents with the Board and will be sending copies to the GNSO Constituencies leaders list as well. The document is now also posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.@icann.org Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 1

NCA input to House placement
by Avri Doria Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Hi, This note is to notify the council that I have worked with the 3 NCAs of the new council and have come up with their input to the council regarding their recommendation for assigning NCA Council Seats as required by the second bullet. This was an action that needed to be completed by 30 September. As a reminder, the Transition plan approved at the last meeting contains the following: ---- > For the period starting on 28 October 2009 and continuing only > through the 2010 ICANN Annual Meeting, the following procedure will > be used to assign NCAs to Council seats: > > • ICANN Staff should ensure that a Statement of Interest is > received from Andrey Kolesnikov and sent to the Council not later > than 30 September 2009. > > • Not later than 30 September 2009, new and existing NCAs will make > best efforts to collaborate and provide their input to the GNSO > Council regarding their recommendations for assigning NCA Council > seats. Such input should include any seating assignments that any of > the NCAs would individually be uncomfortable taking along with their > reasons. > > • Taking into consideration the input from the NCAs, if any, both > GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups > should attempt to reach agreement on the seating for each of the > three NCAs for the first year of the new bicameral Council and > communicate the results to the Council not later than 7 October 2009. > > • If the GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder > Groups are unable to reach agreement, then the new, inexperienced > NCA will take the non-voting Council seat and random selection will > be used to assign the other two NCAs to Houses before the Council > meeting on 8 October 2009. > > • In the meeting scheduled for 8 October 2009, the Council will > acknowledge the results of this process and confirm that it was > properly conducted. > ----- In terms of the first point Glen is currently working with Andrey to get the required SOI completed In terms of the second point, we have recorded the output of the NCAs and make the following recommendations as input to further discussions: Contracted Parties House - Andrey Non contracted Parties House - Terry Independent non-voting - Olga The Process we followed: - First I created a doodle where each of them could indicate their preference. This was one of the 'yes-green, maybe-yellow, no-red' doodles. I set this up as hidden poll, so that consideration for each other's choices would not stand in the way of each of them stating, in the first instance, their personal preference. The idea was that once we saw the individual preferences, they could then negotiate a final list based on knowing what each other really wanted, or was willing, to do. I also made myself available for any of them who wanted to get more background information, but no one took me up on the offer. Note: I also told them that if they hated the idea of the poll we could start in another way, but I was looking for a way to reach a conclusion quickly. - The individual preferences, a snapshot of which is included below, showed that there was one possible solution from the beginning which would avoid any of them having to take a position they did not want. The results (depicted below): Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted parties house. Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted parties house Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent non voting role I suggested this as a starting position for their discussions, but also suggested they could ignore it, if they desired. - In the following conversation they all accepted the proposal, each for his/her own reasons: Andrey felt that his experience in managing a zone with 2.3 M domains, which is 99% compatible to a .COM environment, made him feel comfortable going into the Contracted Parties house. Terry felt that based on his experience in industry the Non Contracted parties house was the most appropriate. Olga was willing to take any of the roles, though she had a preference for the Contracted parties. - It is now up to the houses, to decide if they are willing to accept the input of the NCAs. If not, they will need to come up with another proposal. I invite the NCA's to add any comments to this they feel would be useful to the Houses in making their decision, but am not in any way obliging them to do so. I should mention that Andrey has been added to this list (as all newly appointed/elected council members will be), and I welcome him. Of course the incoming council members are observers on the list until 28 October. In keep with our normal processes, I invite the new council members to participate on the list as fully as they feel ready to with voting and the making of motions being the only exceptions. Regards, a.

10 21

Board appointments to fill 3 non-commercial seats on the new Council
by Denise Michel Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

Dear Community Members, The Board has appointed the following individuals to serve as Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) representatives on the new GNSO Council: Mohammed Rafik Dammak – Tunisia Rosemary Sinclair – Australia Debra Hughes – United States Under the terms of the NCSG transitional charter approved by the Board on 30 July 2009, three of the six NCSG representatives on the new GNSO Council to be seated at the Seoul meeting were to be selected/appointed by the Board. The Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) considered applications from a talented and diverse group of volunteers, conducted extensive due diligence, carefully reviewed the candidates, and recommended for full Board consideration a slate of three nominees to serve on the GNSO Council for the next two years. The individuals listed above were recommended by the SIC for Board appointment based on their combination of skills, experience, background, geographic location, knowledge and passion, with particular attention to their ability to help build non-commercial participation and contribute to the work of the GNSO. More (official) information can be found in the Board resolution that will be posted here <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/>shortly. Staff will be following-up with these individuals to make the necessary arrangements for their participation. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development policy-staff(a)icann.org

1 0

FW: ICANN Signed Affirmation Agreement
by Denise Michel Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

Forwarding email to ensure delivery to ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC, RSSAC, SSAC. Please share with your community members as appropriate. Thank you. Denise Michel VP Policy ICANN =============================== Dear ICANN Community Members: It is my pleasure to inform you that ICANN has signed a permanent "Affirmation Agreement" www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> with the U.S. Department of Commerce that replaces the "Joint Partnership Agreement," which expired on 30 September 2009. This permanent agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Government, which was approved by ICANN's Board and signed by me, affirms our mutual commitment to ICANN's bottom-up, consensus-driven model and oversight by the global Internet community. Details of the of Affirmation Agreement can be found on ICANN's homepage, but I wanted to call your attention, in particular, to the important role ICANN's Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees have in ICANN's future. Under the Agreement, SO and AC representatives and ICANN's international stakeholders are recognized reviewers who can formally hold ICANN accountable. For example, from paragraph 9.2 of the Affirmation, with bold added for emphasis: The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the CEO of ICANN, representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, and independent experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of ICANN. This is another step in an amazing trajectory of the Internet's role in encouraging openness, innovation, commerce and freedom. I, along with ICANN's Board and Staff, look forward to working with you to implement the Agreement. We appreciate your support in bringing ICANN to this important new step in its history. Warmly, Rod Beckstrom President and CEO ICANN Addressing the Global Internet ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Affirmation of commitments between USA Dept of Commerce and ICANN
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

From: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep09-en.htm#affirm ation AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS 1. This document constitutes an Affirmation of Commitments (Affirmation) by the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC") and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), a not-for-profit corporation. In recognition of the conclusion of the Joint Project Agreement and to institutionalize and memorialize the technical coordination of the Internet's domain name and addressing system (DNS)1, globally by a private sector led organization, the parties agree as follows: 2. The Internet is a transformative technology that will continue to empower people around the globe, spur innovation, facilitate trade and commerce, and enable the free and unfettered flow of information. One of the elements of the Internet's success is a highly decentralized network that enables and encourages decision-making at a local level. Notwithstanding this decentralization, global technical coordination of the Internet's underlying infrastructure - the DNS - is required to ensure interoperability. 3. This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination. 4. DOC affirms its commitment to a multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model for DNS technical coordination that acts for the benefit of global Internet users. A private coordinating process, the outcomes of which reflect the public interest, is best able to flexibly meet the changing needs of the Internet and of Internet users. ICANN and DOC recognize that there is a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally. To ensure that its decisions are in the public interest, and not just the interests of a particular set of stakeholders, ICANN commits to perform and publish analyses of the positive and negative effects of its decisions on the public, including any financial impact on the public, and the positive or negative impact (if any) on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. 5. DOC recognizes the importance of global Internet users being able to use the Internet in their local languages and character sets, and endorses the rapid introduction of internationalized country code top level domain names (ccTLDs), provided related security, stability and resiliency issues are first addressed. Nothing in this document is an expression of support by DOC of any specific plan or proposal for the implementation of new generic top level domain names (gTLDs) or is an expression by DOC of a view that the potential consumer benefits of new gTLDs outweigh the potential costs. 6. DOC also affirms the United States Government's commitment to ongoing participation in ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). DOC recognizes the important role of the GAC with respect to ICANN decision-making and execution of tasks and of the effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the Internet DNS. 7. ICANN commits to adhere to transparent and accountable budgeting processes, fact-based policy development, cross-community deliberations, and responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration, and to publish each year an annual report that sets out ICANN's progress against ICANN's bylaws, responsibilities, and strategic and operating plans. In addition, ICANN commits to provide a thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken, the rationale thereof and the sources of data and information on which ICANN relied. 8. ICANN affirms its commitments to: (a) maintain the capacity and ability to coordinate the Internet DNS at the overall level and to work for the maintenance of a single, interoperable Internet; (b) remain a not for profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world to meet the needs of a global community; and (c) to operate as a multi-stakeholder, private sector led organization with input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act. ICANN is a private organization and nothing in this Affirmation should be construed as control by any one entity. 9. Recognizing that ICANN will evolve and adapt to fulfill its limited, but important technical mission of coordinating the DNS, ICANN further commits to take the following specific actions together with ongoing commitment reviews specified below: 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions; (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS; (c) continually assessing and improving the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof); (d) continually assessing the extent to which ICANN's decisions are embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community; and (e) assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development. ICANN will organize a review of its execution of the above commitments no less frequently than every three years, with the first such review concluding no later than December 31, 2010. The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. Each of the foregoing reviews shall consider the extent to which the assessments and actions undertaken by ICANN have been successful in ensuring that ICANN is acting transparently, is accountable for its decision-making, and acts in the public interest. Integral to the foregoing reviews will be assessments of the extent to which the Board and staff have implemented the recommendations arising out of the other commitment reviews enumerated below. 9.2 Preserving security, stability and resiliency: ICANN has developed a plan to enhance the operational stability, reliability, resiliency, security, and global interoperability of the DNS, which will be regularly updated by ICANN to reflect emerging threats to the DNS. ICANN will organize a review of its execution of the above commitments no less frequently than every three years. The first such review shall commence one year from the effective date of this Affirmation. Particular attention will be paid to: (a) security, stability and resiliency matters, both physical and network, relating to the secure and stable coordination of the Internet DNS; (b) ensuring appropriate contingency planning; and (c) maintaining clear processes. Each of the reviews conducted under this section will assess the extent to which ICANN has successfully implemented the security plan, the effectiveness of the plan to deal with actual and potential challenges and threats, and the extent to which the security plan is sufficiently robust to meet future challenges and threats to the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet DNS, consistent with ICANN's limited technical mission. The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the CEO of ICANN, representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, and independent experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. 9.3 Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice: ICANN will ensure that as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation. If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion. ICANN will organize a further review of its execution of the above commitments two years after the first review, and then no less frequently than every four years. The reviews will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the CEO of ICANN, representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, and independent experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. 9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the CEO of ICANN, representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, as well as experts, and representatives of the global law enforcement community, and global privacy experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. 10. To facilitate transparency and openness in ICANN's deliberations and operations, the terms and output of each of the reviews will be published for public comment. Each review team will consider such public comment and amend the review as it deems appropriate before it issues its final report to the Board. 11. The DOC enters into this Affirmation of Commitments pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512 and 47 U.S.C. 902. ICANN commits to this Affirmation according to its Articles of Incorporation and its Bylaws. This agreement will become effective October 1, 2009. The agreement is intended to be long-standing, but may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the parties. Any party may terminate this Affirmation of Commitments by providing 120 days written notice to the other party. This Affirmation contemplates no transfer of funds between the parties. In the event this Affirmation of Commitments is terminated, each party shall be solely responsible for the payment of any expenses it has incurred. All obligations of the DOC under this Affirmation of Commitments are subject to the availability of funds.

1 0

DNSO Restricted Funds
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

Forwarded from ISPCP Constituency Kevin: As a result of the GNSO resolution at http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200904 the remaining DNSO restricted funds are available for support of other ISPCP travelers. On behalf of the ISPCP constituency, I would like to request that $1,347.30 be transferred to the ISPCP general account via a check made out to the ISPCP Secretariat. It is possible to do this through a bank transfer if that is more convenient for you. Otherwise, I hope this simple request is enough to get us started officially! mark Mark McFadden, Secretariat ISPCP Constituency, ICANN secretariat(a)ispcp.info Y! IM: mcfadden AIM: McElmside Tw: McElmside Bkite: mcfadden Fb: Mark McFadden Dear requestor of DNSO restricted funds: I understand that you have been allocated US$3,327.30 of the remaining DNSO restricted funds for the purpose of funding or partially funding your travel costs to the Sydney meeting. (This amount is equal to one sixth of the total of $19,963.79 DNSO restricted funds). In order to execute the release of these funds, please provide a clear request for these funds indicating: * The amount in US$. * Who to pay Please attach this email, including the GNSO resolution below, to your request and copy the GNSO Council list <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>list to ensure accountability and transparency. Separately, please send to Michael Cashin atMichael.cashin(a)icann.org<mailto:Michael.cashin@icann.org>, the specific payment transaction information. If you have any questions, please call or email me at any time. Thank you Kevin Wilson CFO ICANN +1.323.868.0514 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. At a meeting held during the Mexico ICANN meeting in March 2009 between the TDT and members of ICANN staff, the TDT requested that all GNSO Constituencies receive Funding Slots for each of their elected Councilors at each one of the three yearly international ICANN meetings, with the understanding that it would then be up to each Constituency to allocate these slots according to their own internal processes. That request stemmed in part from the recognition of the significant, and ever increasing work loads, that GNSO Councilors face. Work which they carry out as unpaid volunteers. Since that meeting it has been identified that an amount of funds left over from the DNSO are available for use should the Council wish to provide additional Travel Funding to those GNSO Constituencies that no longer have enough credits left for their three slots for the final meeting of the fiscal year 2008, in Sydney. The funds identified are in the amount of 19,963.79 USD. Resolved: That the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express purpose of providing additional Travel Funding for those persons nominated by each Constituency as recipients to be of said Travel Support.

1 0

RE: [council] Topic for next Agenda was Re: [] Incoming Council members
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

> Board-GNSO-Staff Diner topic What about the new agreement/arrangement that is rumored to follow the expiration of the JPA? Seems we should have more details on that by Seoul, and likely a lot of questions. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Topic for next Agenda was Re: [] Incoming Council members From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Tue, September 29, 2009 12:28 pm To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, In terms of that agenda, I currently see two dominant issues: 1. Discussion of the contents of the yet to be approved letter form the Board to the GNSO asking for the GNSO to do some work related to the DAG and the IRT recommendations. 2. Any issues that still need to be dealt with in terms of completing the transition/restructuring. E.g. the assignment of NCAs to houses if that has not been completed yet (completion date is listed as 7 Oct) or any other issue that is pending. The agenda will come out this Thursday. If anyone on the council has any issues they think also need to be covered, please let me know. Also in terms of the Board-GNSO-Staff Diner topic - I am thinking that the contents of the yet to be seen letter might be just the thing. Does this sound reasonable? Any other suggestions? I am also thinking that this letter should be on the Wednesday Public Meeting agenda. thanks a. On 29 Sep 2009, at 12:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > I am anticipating that our agenda may be shorter than usual so I > think that it would be good if we have an agenda item at the > beginning to welcome the new Councilors and an agenda item at the > end allowing them to ask questions if they have any and if time > permits. Other than that it is probably best that the new > Councilors are there as observers unless there is a discussion topic > that specifically involves them. > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:43 AM >> To: Council GNSO >> Subject: Re: [council] Incoming Council members was Re: [] >> NCA input to House placement >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Sorry if i was unclear. i was suggesting that they be there >> as observers. >> But I was not explicit in the part I wrote for that message, >> only in the part I included from a previous message. >> >> BTW, 'as observers' normally means, in a GNSO context, that >> they can participate just not vote or make motions. >> >> a. >> >> On 29 Sep 2009, at 11:35, Adrian Kinderis wrote: >> >>> I object to them joining as Councillors. >>> >>> They should be there as observers only. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 30/09/2009, at 1:14, "Stéphane Van Gelder" >>> <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.co >>> m> wrote: >>> >>>> Seems fine to me. >>>> >>>> Stéphane >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 29/09/09 15:26, « Avri Doria » <avri(a)psg.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29 Sep 2009, at 08:32, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I should mention that Andrey has been added to this list (as all >>>>>> newly appointed/elected council members will be), and I welcome >>>>>> him. Of course the incoming council members are >> observers on the >>>>>> list until 28 October. In keep with our normal >> processes, I invite >>>>>> the new council members to participate on the list as >> fully as they >>>>>> feel ready to with voting and the making of motions >> being the only >>>>>> exceptions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would like to suggest that incoming council members also be >>>>> invited to join the next Council call on on 8 October. >>>>> >>>>> Since this is not part of the normal process, I want to >> confirm that >>>>> there are no objections. >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> >>>>> a. >>>>> >> >> >> >

3 2

ALAC Coordinator for RAA DT(s)
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

Beau Brendler will be leading the effort for the ALAC. Alan

1 0

Ask a Question Direct to the Board in Seoul
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep09-en.htm Ask a Question Direct to the Board in Seoul 29 September 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 14 October in preparation for the public forum at ICANN's international public meeting in Seoul on Thursday 29 October. 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 Seoul meeting website and the blog. Related links: Seoul question box: http://icann.wufoo.com/forms/seoul-question-box/ Sydney question box responses: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/sydney-public-forum-response-en.html Mexico City question box responses: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/mexico-city-public-forum-response.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Incoming Council members was Re: [] NCA input to House placement
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

I agree with Adrian and with Chuck's suggestion below. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Incoming Council members was Re: [] NCA input to House placement From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, September 29, 2009 11:46 am To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I am anticipating that our agenda may be shorter than usual so I think that it would be good if we have an agenda item at the beginning to welcome the new Councilors and an agenda item at the end allowing them to ask questions if they have any and if time permits. Other than that it is probably best that the new Councilors are there as observers unless there is a discussion topic that specifically involves them. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:43 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Incoming Council members was Re: [] > NCA input to House placement > > > Hi, > > Sorry if i was unclear. i was suggesting that they be there > as observers. > But I was not explicit in the part I wrote for that message, > only in the part I included from a previous message. > > BTW, 'as observers' normally means, in a GNSO context, that > they can participate just not vote or make motions. > > a. > > On 29 Sep 2009, at 11:35, Adrian Kinderis wrote: > > > I object to them joining as Councillors. > > > > They should be there as observers only. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On 30/09/2009, at 1:14, "Stéphane Van Gelder" > > <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.co > > m> wrote: > > > >> Seems fine to me. > >> > >> Stéphane > >> > >> > >> Le 29/09/09 15:26, « Avri Doria » <avri(a)psg.com> a écrit : > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 29 Sep 2009, at 08:32, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> > >>>> I should mention that Andrey has been added to this list (as all > >>>> newly appointed/elected council members will be), and I welcome > >>>> him. Of course the incoming council members are > observers on the > >>>> list until 28 October. In keep with our normal > processes, I invite > >>>> the new council members to participate on the list as > fully as they > >>>> feel ready to with voting and the making of motions > being the only > >>>> exceptions. > >>> > >>> > >>> I would like to suggest that incoming council members also be > >>> invited to join the next Council call on on 8 October. > >>> > >>> Since this is not part of the normal process, I want to > confirm that > >>> there are no objections. > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> > >>> a. > >>> > > >

1 0

Zahid Jamil's updated statement of interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

Dear Councillors, Please find Zahid Jamil's updated statement of interest http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/jamil-soi-28jun08.html posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.html Thank you very much. kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

[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-28sep09-en.htm ICANN is Seeking Independent Researchers to Respond to Request for Proposal on WHOIS Misuse Studies 28 September 2009 The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now exploring several extensive studies of WHOIS and has asked ICANN to estimate the cost and feasibility of conducting several studies proposed by members of the ICANN community and ICANN's Government Advisory Committee. The first area of study focuses on "misuse" of public WHOIS information, and, pursuant to the above request, ICANN is seeking to engage independent research organizations to undertake one or more proposed WHOIS Misuse studies. The Misuse Studies RFP Cover Letter illustrates the scope of work and the criteria for selection. This document should be read in conjunction with the Terms of Reference for WHOIS Misuse Studies RFP. Read together, these two documents provide the materials necessary to respond to this Request for Proposals ("RFP") for WHOIS Misuse Studies. More information about WHOIS may be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/index.html By 27 November, 2009, interested applicants should submit proposals by email to rfpwhois(a)icann.org to the attention of Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Department. A confirmation email will be sent for each proposal received. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Andrei Kolesnikov - Nominating Committee Appointee Statement of Interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

Forwarded From: Andrei Kolesnikov Statement of Interest Andrei Kolesnikov - Nominating Committee Appointee Statement of Interest 28 September 2009 I started with Internet in late 80th. Since that time I was involved into all major Internet issues: building large ISPs, managing the marketing initiatives, running Web sites and doing business development, including M&As. My last job was deputy media director for Vimpelcom (NYSE: VIP), telecom giant in Russia. Currently I'm a director of Coordination center for TLD .RU<http://cctld.ru/>, country domain administrator, a non-profit organization responsible for defining the domain registration and administration rules. Coordination center also outsources support and construction of the DNS infrastructure and core .RU domain directory and registration system. Currently Coordination center has 21 accredited organizations authorized to register second level domains in Russian TLD. Our organization is a part of ccNSO community. As part of my volunteer activities I'm advising Ministry of communications and mass media of Russia on issues related to domains and address space. Also I'm a member of the "Friendly RUNET<http://friendlyrunet.ru/>" foundation to fight child pornography and abuse. I have no commercial interest in ICANN GNSO work results. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Additional Council motion
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 28, 2009

Sept. 28, 2009

Dear Councillors, In addition to the resolutions that were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 24 September 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07471.html The Council passed a motion to hold a closed breakfast meeting: - one hour before the regularly scheduled meeting, 08:00 - 09:00, on Sunday, 25 October 2009. - during which there will be no recording, transcription or remote participation - the declared reason for closing the meeting is to allow the GNSO Council members, incoming and outgoing, liaisons to the Council and Policy staff to know each other better and share concerns. 11 Votes in favour Philip Sheppard, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Chuck Gomes (two votes each) Chuck Gomes and Olga Cavalli noted for the record: Chuck Gomes: "Yes and I will add a comment as well. Personally I would be okay with it being open. But I think there are enough people that are concerned about that, that I respect their view on that. Olga Cavalli: "Yes and I have a comment. The same as Chuck. I would prefer an open meeting but I understand the constraints of speaking (unintelligible) people have, so that's okay if it's closed. Two Votes against: Mary Wong, William Drake. Mary Wong noted: "This is 'no' on principle because of the (NCU) position on openness. Although personally I just want to say that I understand the limited reasons why others might vote yes. Thank you." Dropped off the call: Zahid Jamil, Cyril Chua, Edmon Chung Absent councillors: Mike Rodenbaugh, Ute Decker, Tony Holmes, Carlos Souza, Adrian Kinderis, Jordi Iparraguirre, Terry Davis. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Recommended GNSO Council Operating Procedures Available for Review And Comment
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 28, 2009

Sept. 28, 2009

Dear All, Please note the following request for comments and please take time to comment. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-25sep09-en.htm Public Comment: Recommended GNSO Council Operating Procedures Available for Review And Comment 25 September 2009 The newly-restructured GNSO Council is scheduled to be seated during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Seoul, South Korea. Establishing updated operating procedures consistent with the new ICANN Bylaws is a key step toward seating the new Council. Today, a package of recommended Operating Procedures for the new Council is being made available for public review and comment through 16 October 2009. The recommendations are the product of the cross-constituency GNSO Council Operations Work Team that was tasked with reviewing the existing GNSO operating rules and procedures and recommending changes consistent with the new GNSO Council's goal of becoming a strategic manager of the policy process. Community members are invited to review the recommendations and comment on all aspects of the recommended procedures. The recommended procedures address a number of areas including the selection of officers, the conduct of meetings and how Council votes are cast and counted. In authorizing the release of the recommendations for review and comment, ICANN Staff was directed to note a specific area of discussion regarding the treatment of instances where Council members may choose to abstain from a particular vote (see - http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090924.mp3) Alternative treatment of vote abstentions (the original work team recommendation and potential substitute language) in the recommended procedures is noted in Section 4.2 of the package. Commenters should note which treatment they prefer. The Staff has also been asked by Council members to prepare an analysis of how potential Council votes would be tabulated based on different treatments of Councilor abstentions. That Staff analysis will be provided as a submission to the comment forum. Document Links: The recommended operating procedures can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-operating-procedures-24sep09-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-operating-procedures-24sep09-en.doc The Process From Here: At the end of this Public Comment Forum period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions. Consistent with the Transition Implementation Plan approved by the GNSO Council at its 24 September meeting, the updated operating procedures will be the first substantial item on the new Council's agenda of 28 October in Seoul. The new council members will discuss and vote on the updated Council Operating Procedures. Approval of the Procedures will require a majority of the voting members of each house for approval. Any amendment that results from comments submitted, will need to be voted on prior to the vote on the Procedures and will also require a majority of the voting members of each house. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 21-day public consultation forum, from 25 September through 16 October 2009, and invites community comments on this matter. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-operating-procedures-2009 To submit comments: gnso-operating-procedures-2009(a)icann.org To view comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-operating-procedures-2009/ Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 24 September 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 28, 2009

Sept. 28, 2009

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the motions passed by the GNSO Council at the meeting on Thursday, 24 September 2009. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership Motion proposed by Mary Wong and seconded by Philip Sheppard Whereas, Recommendation 19 of the GNSO policy authorizing the new gTLD process states: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars;" Whereas, opening up the market to many new TLD operators may call into question some of the assumptions on which the separation of registry and registrar functions is based; Whereas, economic research commissioned by ICANN staff also suggests that changes in these assumptions might be justified; Whereas, the new gTLD policies passed by the Council do not provide any guidance regarding the proper approach to cross ownership and vertical integration, but instead implicitly suggest that the status quo be left in place; Resolved: the GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of an Issues Report for delivery within 45 days on future changes in vertical integration and cross-ownership between gTLD registrars and registries, to assist in determining whether a PDP should be initiated regarding what policies would best serve to promote competition and to protect users and registrants. Council votes in favour: 11 votes Live Council votes: Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia, Mary Wong, William Drake, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Terry Davis and Mike Rodenbaugh - absentee ballots (one vote each) Council votes against: 6 votes Live Council votes: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each) Adrian Kinderis - absentee ballot (two votes each) Four Councillors abstained (7 votes): Live Council Abstentions: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, (two votes each) Avri Doria (one vote) Jordi Iparraguirre - absentee ballot (two votes) Three Councillors did not vote: Carlos Souza, Ute Decker, Tony Holmes (one vote each) Reasons for abstentions: Chuck Gomes and Edmon Chung "I want to thank Kristina and the IPC for the good amendments that were accepted as friendly by the NCUC. The Registry constituency does not want to abstain because of the amendments, they have not had enough time to comment on them yet. The constituency had previously made a decision on the original motion to abstain and because there has not been enough time to obtain feedback on the amended motion, Edmon Chung and I are going to abstain. The reason for the abstention has little to do with the request in the motion, except for the fact that even though the motion requests that any PDP not affect the timing of the new gTLDs, we think it would be highly unlikely that it would not have an impact on the launch of new TLDs, and because there could be misperceptions with regard to existing Registries doing anything that might cause delays and thinking that we are fearful of competition, we want to avoid that possible perception." Reason for abstention : Jordi Iparraguirre "I'm abstaing for the same reason as Chuck and Edmon. Our vote in the GNSO follows the decisions taken by our constituency, and we had no time to discuss it." Reasons for abstention: Avri Doria Due to CSG concerns about the ethics of my decision to join the NCUC and about the propriety of my continuing to vote as an NCA, I abstain from all votes in the council until such time as the Board Structural Improvements Committee decides on the disposition of the CSG letter of concern. I do this so that there can be no later dispute concerning policy decisions of the GNSO council based on questions about my status. 2. Amendment to Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition Motion made by Chuck Gomes on 23 September 2009 and seconded by Mary Wong In the following Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition originally submitted on 15 September and amended on 17 September, add the following to step 9 of the Plan: "As the first substantial item on the agenda of 28 October, the new council members will discuss and vote on the updated Council Operating Procedures. Approval of the Procedures will require a majority of the voting members of each house for approval. Any amendment that results from comments submitted, will need to be voted on prior to the vote on the Procedures and will also require a majority of the voting members of each house." 2 a. Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/amended-motion-bicameral-council-seat-transiti… The amendment and the motion passed by voice vote. Councillors present at the time of the vote: Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia, Mary Wong, William Drake, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes, Olga Cavalli. One abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) Avri Doria was referred to in the motion and thus abstained from voting. 3. Council reached consensus and the Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures will be posted for Public Comment along with the amendment which was modified to include comments with the document noting the issues with regard to counting of abstention votes and noting that additional work may be needed on that. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/public-comment-draft-17sep09-en.pdf 4. The GNSO Council Motion to approve Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Charter Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Philip Sheppard. Whereas: * There have been increasing community concerns that the current WHOIS service is deficient in a number of ways, including technical areas as noted in recent SSAC reports, such as accessibility and readability of WHOIS contact information in an internationalized domain name (IDN) environment. * On 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published a report titled SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037) located at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac037.pdf. * On 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolutionrequesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data. * In the 26 June resolution, the Board directs the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group to solicit input from interested constituencies including ccTLD operators and the ccNSO during its discussions to ensure broad community input. * ICANN Staff in cooperation with members of the GNSO Council and SSAC developed a draft charter for said working group as attached. The GNSO Council: * Approves the IRD WG draft charter, and * Encourages GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants of the IRD WG with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data. Internationalized Data Registration WG Draft Charter 15 Sep 09.doc http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/internationalized-data-registration-wg-draft-c… The motion was passed by voice vote. Councillors present at the time of the vote: Philip Sheppard, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia, Mary Wong, William Drake, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Chuck Gomes, Olga Cavalli. One abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) Avri Doria stated the following reason for abstaining Due to CSG concerns about the ethics of my decision to join the NCUC and about the propriety of my continuing to vote as an NCA, I abstain from all votes in the council until such time as the Board Structural Improvements Committee decides on the disposition of the CSG letter of concern. I do this so that there can be no later dispute concerning policy decisions of the GNSO council based on questions about my status. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: CBUC representative to the GNSO Council
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 28, 2009

Sept. 28, 2009

Forwarded From: BC Secretariat Dear Glen Election of a CBUC representative to the GNSO Council The nomination period for this election closed yesterday. There was only one nomination: Zahid Jamil (Asia/Australia/Pacific) As there is no contest, I can confirm that Zahid Jamil will continue for a second term as a BC representative to the GNSO Council. The term is for two years and ends at the ICANN General Meeting 2011. Best wishes Gary

1 0

Absentee voting closed
by Glen De Saint Gery Sept. 27, 2009

Sept. 27, 2009

The absentee voting on the vertical separation motion is closed. The final results, along with the resolutions passed by the Council on 24 September 2009, will be published on the Council list. Thank you. Glen GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Re: Absentee Ballot on motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership
by Jordi Iparraguirre Sept. 26, 2009

Sept. 26, 2009

> * On the motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership I vote: > * [ ] Yes > * [ ] No > * [X] Abstain > * Password: blue-8 -- Jordi Iparraguirre Fundació puntCAT www.domini.cat

1 0

ICANN Board meeting agenda - 30 Sept 2009
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 25, 2009

Sept. 25, 2009

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-30sep09.htm Board Meeting - Agenda 30 September 2009 1.Consent Agenda ================= a. Approval of Minutes from 29 August 2009 Special Board Meeting b. Approval of Minutes from 12 September 2009 Special Board Meeting c. From the Board Finance Committee i. Approval of Technology Support Contractor Agreement d. From the Structural Improvements Committee i. Appointment of three NCSG GNSO Council ii. Approval of Change in Bylaws For Reviews from Three Years to Five iii. Appointment of George Sadowsky to Nominating Committee Review Working iv. Approval of Posting for Public Comment reports received from the Board Review Working Group, the Nominating Committee Review Working Group and SSAC Review Working v. Approval of Recommendation of Board Review Working Group for the Board Governance Committee to undertake Further Analysis of Board Remuneration Main Board Meeting Main Board Meeting - For Action and Discussion ============================================= 1. From the Board Finance Committee Approval of Lease for Palo Alto Office 2. Status Update on .YU (Yugoslavia) domain 3. JPA Progress Report 4. Strategic Planning - Follow on from Discussions at Retreat 5. Updates Heading into the Seoul Meeting a. IDNs & New gTLDs - including Guidebook b. GNSO Improvements & Restructuring i. General - board submission paper ii. Status on Charters of New Constituencies c. Implementation Recommendations Team for New gTLDs 6. Thanks to the CEO Search Committee Other Business 7. Executive Session a. From Board Governance Committee i. Slate for New Board Positions b. From Board Compensation Committee i. President & CEO Performance Matrix ii. Former President & CEO Performance Matrix iii. Ombudsman Performance Matrix, Compensation & Contract c. Senior President - Management of Performance Matrix

1 0

Abstentions
by Philip Sheppard Sept. 25, 2009

Sept. 25, 2009

Please note some wise words from Steve M.sent to the OSC list. _____ From: owner-gnso-osc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:11 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-osc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts I am afraid we are trying to square the circle on this abstention issue. Abstentions may occur for a lot of reasons. But if one occurs in order to avoid a conflict of interest problem, then we cannot treat it as a functional "no" vote -- which we do if we insist that the denominator in calculating a voting threshold must always be the total number of people seated in the House or council. Let's assume that on a motion before the council, a councillor's financial interests will be directly benefited by defeat of the motion. The councillor should refrain from voting on (or even from participating in the discussion of) the motion. Let's assume the council consists of 10 people and that a majority vote is needed for the motion. However, if the councillor abstains for this reason, then if 5 vote for and 4 against, the motion fails. Abstention will have achieved exactly the result that a conflict of interest policy should avoid at all costs -- the action of the councillor has directly benefitted his financial interest. If the councillor is able to truly abstain, so that his presence is not counted for purposes of achieving the voting threshold, then the vote (5-4) reflects the views of the majority of council members who were allowed (in accordance with conflict of interest policy) to vote, and should be enough to carry the motion. The same scenario could play out almost no matter what is the voting threshold required or the number of eligible voters. I emphasize that many abstentions will not be for conflict reasons -- quite commonly, it will be because the constituency/stakeholder group could not reach a position on the issue, or an issue arises suddenly and the councillor has decided that she will not vote absent instructions from her constituency/SG. There is less of a problem counting the abstention for purposes of a voting threshold in this case -- though it still may not be a good idea. But there would need to be an exception to this general rule for situations in which an abstention is dictated by conflict of interest rules. Steve

3 4

RE: Absentee Ballot on motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership
by Adrian Kinderis Sept. 25, 2009

Sept. 25, 2009

-----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 2:22 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Absentee Ballot on motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership Dear Adrian, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the Council meeting today, Thursday 24 September 2009 are allowed an absentee ballot. Councilors noted as absent: Mike Rodenbaugh, Ute Decker, Tony Holmes, Carlos Souza, Jordi Iparraguirre, Adrian Kinderis, Terry Davis. Below, please find a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, so please indicate your reason for abstaining. PLEASE NOTE: There is one motion. Please return the ballot, that is, indicate your preference with an X and send the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council mailing list <council(a)gnso.icann.org> * On the motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership I vote: * [ ] Yes * [X] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: white-0 This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 15:15 UTC, Thursday September 24, 2009 Completed ballots are due NLT 15:15 UTC Sunday, 27 September 2009. (08:15 PDT, 11:15 EDT, 12:15 Rio de Janeiro, 16:15 London, 17:15 CEST, 01:15 Melbourne Monday 28 September 2009 Motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership Motion proposed by Mary Wong and seconded by Philip Sheppard Whereas, Recommendation 19 of the GNSO policy authorizing the new gTLD process states: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars;" Whereas, opening up the market to many new TLD operators may call into question some of the assumptions on which the separation of registry and registrar functions is based; Whereas, economic research commissioned by ICANN staff also suggests that changes in these assumptions might be justified; Whereas, the new gTLD policies passed by the Council do not provide any guidance regarding the proper approach to cross ownership and vertical integration, but instead implicitly suggest that the status quo be left in place; Resolved: the GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of an Issues Report for delivery within 45 days on future changes in vertical integration and cross-ownership between gTLD registrars and registries, to assist in determining whether a PDP should be initiated regarding what policies would best serve to promote competition and to protect users and registrants. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli Sept. 25, 2009

Sept. 25, 2009

Hi, .tz Tanzania is now member nr 96 of the ccNSO. Regards, Olga

1 0

Fwd: Looks like the JPA will expire next week
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

Don't think that this has been sent to the Council list. Thanks to Bob Bruen for this pointer. Alan >The Economist is reporting that ICANN will not have the JPA renewed. A 4 >page letter has been signed (affirmation of commitments). There is some >international oversight committee going in place, with four panels and the >US will have reps on only one. > >ICANN has said nothing about this and there is no word yet on who in the >US government sign the letter. > >http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517430

1 0

RE: Absentee Ballot on motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership
by Terry L Davis, P.E. Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

Council Members * On the motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: silver-1 Take care Terry

1 0