September 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

Why couldn't we proceed without the GAC? It's not that we don't want their participation, we do. But this is a joint effort and no one AC or SO should try to control what's discussed, or be allowed to. I agree that there is no point in spending time discussing the demand issue. I don't particularly like what Stephane is suggesting either (with all due respect). It seems a bit self-serving and not of much interest to the broader community, especially with all the other important issues that could be discussed. Considering what's been suggested so far, I would prefer Kristina's suggestion - malicious conduct. But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability. The Board has posted suggestions that I think fall short, and based on comments submitted regarding IIC and the NOI on the JPA I believe many if not most of the community believe they fall short regardless of where they are on whether or not the JPA should be extended. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 4:49 am To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Avri, Chuck, Agree with the both of you that this is not a particular useful topic to have at the ACSO meeting as it will just be a slugging match between the gTLD pros and cons. I don't see who would be able to give factual information on consumer demand for new gTLDs, so it would just be everyone voicing their opinion. That's exactly what has been happening for the last couple of years anyway so in what way would such a session be productive? Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions they were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any idea why the apparent change of attitude? As for possible topic choices, this session being an opportunity for a get-together between the various committees and organisations that make up ICANN and that ensure that ICANN can actually function, I would think it would be more useful to have folks discuss ways to improve the ICANN, ACs and SOs processes. As these are brainstorming sessions, I think we can be quite daring in our choices of topics. How about something like: "with volunteer burnout becoming a pressing problem, should ICANN look into remuneration possibilities for AC and SO council and excom members?" I'm sure most people would be against this (I certainly am), but it would give people an opportunity to explain why and what their take on being involved in the ICANN process is. Just an idea... Stéphane Le 02/09/09 00:21, « Avri Doria » <avri(a)acm.org> a écrit : > > Hi, > > while not the same words, pretty much what i said. > but i promised to report it in a neutral manner. > > GAC is being rather insistent. > they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting. > > the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a > Monday > unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them. > > i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and > said so. > but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be > cancelled. > > a. > > > On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >> Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to >> one >> side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we >> started in the New gTLD PDP process? >> >> Chuck >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM >>> To: Council GNSO >>> Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting >>> for Seoul was discussed. >>> >>> The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a >>> topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. >>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush >>> -18aug09-en.pdf >>> >>> Specially based on the following sentence: >>> >>> "The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has >>> not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs >>> provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be >>> outweighed by the potential harms." >>> >>> So the topic would be: >>> >>> Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential >>> benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the >>> potential harms >>> >>> We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs >>> and ACs before next week. >>> >>> I have also reported this under the status section of the >>> Agenda for this week. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >> >

4 4

FW: PPSC-WTs updates for Council
by Marika Konings Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

For your information, please find below the updates of the PPSC Work Teams. With best regards, Marika ------ Forwarded Message From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:42:38 +0200 To: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Conversation: PPSC-WTs updates for Council Subject: PPSC-WTs updates for Council Avri, please find below the updates for the PDP-WT and the WG-WT. With best regards, Marika =========== 8. 7. 1. Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) The PDP-WT is finalizing its discussions on the 'proposal review and voting threshold' stage (stage two out of five), and is expected to start discussions shortly on stage three 'Work Phase'. A first draft of the the recommendations for the 'planning and initiation' stage (stage one out of five) has been circulated to the WT for review and discussion at the next meeting. 8. 7. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT Staff has provided a first draft of the Charter Guidelines for review by the WG-WT. The WG-WT has started reviewing this document, but had to cancel its most recent meeting due to lack of attendance. Staff is currently working on a first draft of the Working Group Guidelines Document for review by the WG-WT. ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

RAP-WG interim report for Council
by Mike Rodenbaugh Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@afilias.info] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 11:23 AM > To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com > Subject: RE: Reminder on reports > > Hi, Mike. If a RAPWG update is needed, I suggest: > > * * * > The topics of Cybersquatting, Malware/Botnet Control, Contract > Uniformity, Front-Running, and Phishing/Spam/Malware have been > assigned to subgroups of volunteers, who are writing background data > and statements; these will become sections of the WG's Initial Report. > Wikis have been set up, where each subgroup is developing its content. > A full list of topics for forthcoming discussion is in the latest > "RAPWG Abuse Categories and Types" > document at: > https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_work ing_group > > There is a scope discussion of whether or not the RAPWG should, > because of past GNSO efforts and the six WHOIS study questions that > were recently commissioned, leave WHOIS topics off its list of > registration abuses for major examination. > The WG Chair, the WG Liaison, and the GNSO Council Chair and > Vice-Chair are currently discussing this issue. > > * * * > > All best, > --Greg > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:39 AM > To: gaaron(a)afilias.info > Subject: FW: Reminder on reports > > Hey Greg, anything in particular you would like to tell Council this > week? > > Thanks, > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:53 AM > To: Chuck Gomes; Jeff Neuman; Liz Gasster; Tim Ruiz; > mike(a)rodenbaugh.com Rodenbaugh > Subject: Reminder on reports > > Hi, > > Just a reminder that all WG, WT, and DT are requested to get reports > iseverl adays before the meeting. > > Please pass the message on to any chairs you are working with and to > the supporting team that is working with them. > > thanks > > a. > >

1 0

Fwd: new bylaws
by Avri Doria Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Begin forwarded message: > Hi Avri, > The updated Bylaws are now posted-- > http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-27aug09.pdf > > Margie

2 1

Council Transition Plan for Bicameral Council Seats
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

I would like to submit the attached draft plan for discussion in our Council meeting tomorrow under "Item 9: Schedule/Actions leading up and for Seoul". Chuck

1 0

FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

On behalf of the RyC, I would like to propose the following amendments to Mike Rodenbaugh's Fast Flux motion. We hope they would be considered friendly but that is Mike's call. Note that the current wording of the motion is in italic font below and that I attached a red line version of the resolution part of the motion.. Chuck Gomes (A) "To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and/or policy changes to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux" Make a friendly amendment to change to: "...the development of best practices and/or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate..." Reasons: * The WG did not recommend any policy changes specific to fast-flux. The issue of domain name abuse in general is a completely separate and more complicated matter -- see (B) below. * The phrase "Industry solutions" were included in the relevant Final Report's Recommendations section -- but was dropped in the Resolution language for some reason. See (C) below for why Internet industry is a preferred option. * The creation of non-binding best practices is a good idea; awareness-raising and education are needed and in keeping with the RyC position. Such efforts could include the ccNSO or other relevant bodies. * The RyC supports best practices and encourages industry solutions by the wider Internet community, rather than further policy change discussions. (B) "To examine whether existing policy sufficiently empowers Registries and Registrars to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux, as a component of any future Registration Abuse PDP(s)" Make friendly amendment so as to read: "The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux." Reasons: * Make the referral explicit. The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) was specifically created to examine such abuse issues, and was an explicit outgrowth of the learning done in the FFWG. Core issues are now being examined in the RAPWG. * It is not agreed that GNSO policy can or should "empower" registries and registrars to mitigate illicit FF. * "of any future Registration Abuse PDP(s)" is poor wording. The GNSO has had several PDPs related to registration abuses -- such as domain tasting. FF is not related to any and all registration issues. * The current wording of the resolution implies that registries should be responsible for mitigating fast-flux (and by extension other abusive uses of domain names). (C) "To encourage staff, interested stakeholders, and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions and/or policy work" Suggest friendly amendment to remove the words "staff" and "and/or policy work." ICANN should not devote resources to the creation or maintenance of a fast-flux reporting tool. Reasons: * FF is an issue that ICANN is not well-suited to deal with on a practical level, FF is really outside of GNSO policy-making scope, and FF is not a core DNS security and stability issue within ICANN's mission. * Therefore spending ICANN funds is not relevant. * The Final Report points out that similar security issues are dealt with by interested parties outside of ICANN -- such as for phishing (APWG and PhishTank), botnets (ShadowServer and Conficker WG), and spam (Spamhaus and the SURBLs). * NOTE: Discussion about a "Fast Flux Data Reporting System" should be clear -- participation in such a tool was never discussed as something that should be mandated by policy. A Fast Flux Data Reporting System should not be equated with ICANN's WHOIS WDPRS reporting tool [http://wdprs.internic.net/ ] -- the WDPRS is a compliance tool related to existing contractual obligations that registrars and registrants must adhere to.

1 0

WHOIS misuse and misrepresentation studies -- reminder -- your input is welcome but needed quickly
by Liz Gasster Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

All, Just a friendly reminder that if you have comments or concerns about these draft study terms of reference (which will become the basis for RFPs to solicit costs and feasibility that we will release to the public), please provide them ASAP, but no later than Sept. 10. Some specific notes and caveats: 1. I am working with a consultant and we are still incorporating comments we've received, so these documents are subject to change (in addition to input you may still provide) 2. Again, specific questions we have are highlighted in the italicized boxed text, but you are free to offer comments on any aspect of these documents 3. When these are actually released, a cover note will be included, with specific comments and instructions for responding. Are there notes, explanation or comments that you think should be made clear or specified in addition to the background, goals, etc.? 4. How much time do you think we should give potential researchers to respond to the RFPs? Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Liz Gasster Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:02 AM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting All, I have been reaching out to various proponents of studies, and to candidates who might be helpful in providing study data, on a selected basis, to try to define the precise parameters of the terms of reference for RFPs to obtain costs and feasibility for various WHOIS study areas. You may recall that the Council, in asking for this work to be done at your open meeting in Mexico City, specifically invited staff to: "pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses. At any time, Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses." These discussions have been conducted pursuant to that invitation, they have been "one-off" discussions, and Glen happened to record and post this one because I asked her to schedule it. Other calls have also occurred. I did not post agendas or announce the calls, other than to the invitees of the calls. Please let me know if you would prefer that I handle these calls in a different way. Regarding the substance and status of WHOIS studies -- I have reformulated the categories of studies into the attached groupings. (Please see chart attached). Draft terms of reference for RFPs on the first two study areas, WHOIS "misuse" and WHOIS "misrepresentation" are also attached for your reference. I am currently seeking input on the questions highlighted in the italicized "boxed" text in the attached. If you have input to provide, please feel free to do so. We have not yet begun to prepare a document on "Proxy and Privacy Services". I had not intended to conduct a broad community-wide consultation at this stage. If the Council wants to provide input or solicit broader input now or at any time before RFPs are released, please let me know and I can of course accommodate that, noting that will delay the release of these requests. Regarding Study 4 on the attached (previously study #11) staff is currently thinking (though our thoughts could certainly change) that this study might be subsumed by the work of the SSAC and GNSO to study the feasibility of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data. Regarding study 5, we will be initiating the compilation of WHOIS service requirements in early September. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like further information, or if you would like me to alter my process in any way. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:21 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting I was unaware of it as well. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:55 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting > > > 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. > >

1 0

WG Reports for IRTP Part B and PEDNR
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

----------------------------- IRTP Part B WG ----------------------------- Michele Nylon was selected as Chair of the WG and the Council will confirm the selection 3 Sept. We have had two calls and work on the list: -- We discussed background around the issues. -- Discussed and worked definitions. This is still ongoing. -- Discussed the two SSAC reports with help from Dave Piscatelo. The first was produced in 2005 and dealt with suggestions for a process for urgent return and resolution of a domain name after a fraudulent transfer. The second report deals with protecting domain names agains exploitation or misuse and focuses on high profile domains. -- Working on the Public Comment Announcement and Constituency Statement Template. -- Planned a F2F for Monday at 7am in in Seoul. -- Next call is 15 September 2009. ----------------------------- PEDNR WG ----------------------------- The questions posed in the charter have been submitted for public comment until 10 Sept. The WG has also sent requests for each constituency to respond. -- In response to the request for Staff to provide information on how current policies on expired names are enforced William McKelligott, ICANN Auditor for the Contractual Compliance Team provided this summary of a recent audit: "ICANN Compliance recently completed an audit of all registrar websites to establish if they were compliant with the Expired Domain Deletion Policy as it relates to fees charged to registered name holders for recovering domain names that have entered the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) (please refer to section 3.7.5.6 of the EDDP). A large number or registrars- close to 500 of them- posted information on their websites in relation to recovering domain names that are in RGP which either either did not mention fees or mentioned them but did not specify any amount (e.g., “fees will apply”). The EDDP requires registrars to post on their website the actual fees charged to registered name holders for recovering domain names that are in RGP. Compliance will be posting an advisory and reaching out to registrars in the very near future to clarify this requirement." Link to the full report: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/contractual-compliance-report-27… Other items: -- Discussed other data that might be helpful. -- Formed a Data Collection Sub-Team. It was scheduled to meet Wednesday but I believe that was postponed. -- Reviewed what further information / discussion is required to fulfil following requirements of PEDNR charter, such as current Registrar practices. -- Began review of Charter Question 1 - Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names. Questions were raised as to how to define what is adequate. -- Ongoing discussion on how to collect data to support scope of problem. -- Next call is 8 September 2009.

1 0

Update ccnso-idnpdpwg1
by Olga Cavalli Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Hi, what was missed in my previous update report was the briefing after the first ccnso-idnpdpwg1 working team conference call held last Monday. Here it is: ICANN staff will prepare a first draft Topic Paper by mid september, which will be reviewed by the working team. This first paper will be discussed among the working team and should be available for public comments by mid October. There will be a face to face meeting of the wt in Seoul. The final topic paper including comments should be ready by 20 November. Regards Olga *Backgound information for the WT and Topic Paper:* Issues Report IDN ccPDP ( * http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-issues-report-idn-ccpdp-02apr09.… *). This includes the issue paper of the joint GAC-ccNSO Working Group (which can also be found at: * http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09jul07.htm*) . The issues paper also defines the scope of this WG. Draft Initial Report of the IDNC WG. This is comparable to the Topic Paper as mentioned above. The document can be found at *http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm* ( it is a PDF document)

1 0

JIG Mailing list subscribers
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Dear All, Please find the current subscribers to the joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN working group mailing list. GNSO Participants Avri Doria - GNSO Council chair Chuck Gomes - GNSO Council vice-chair Edmon Chung - gTLD Registries Terry Davis - Nominating Committee Appointee Stéphane van Gelder - Registrar ccNSO Participants Chris Disspain - ccNSO Council chair Zhang Jian ccNSO Staff Bart Boswinkel Kristina Nordstrom GNSO Policy Staff GNSO Secretariat Mailing list address: jig(a)icann.org Public archives may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig/ Thank you. Kind regards Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council]Status/report from ACSO meeting
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Avri, Missed this. But even so, I would still prefer Accountability as the topic. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council]Status/report from ACSO meeting From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 6:22 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, I did not write that carefully enough. They did not say do ours or else. Or any version of that. What they said was closer to: that for it to be worth a Monday slot to them, it had to be a topic that was on their plate for this meeting. So either Fast Track issues or new gTLD issues. If we wanted to do something else then schedule for Thursday when they have already finished the bulk of the work that they need to do. Similar to Kristina, they did not feel that the topic last time, while perhaps interesting in itself, contributed to the work they had to get done. I think the issues is more one of focus. Note, I had intended my message as an offlist message to Chuck. I had not planned to give my view in the discussion - but then I sent it to the wrong address. Had I been writing it to the list, I would have been more careful to try and make sure I did not put in the wrong nuance about the GAC position. Fortunately I do not think I embarrassed myself as badly as we sometime do when we send a message to the wrong address. Hopefully the GAC will forgive me for the inappropriate implications I enabled. a. On 2 Sep 2009, at 11:49, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run > our > topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO > sessions they > were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. > Any idea > why the apparent change of attitude?

1 0

Status/report from ACSO meeting
by Avri Doria Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Hi, Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed. The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush-18aug09-en.p… Specially based on the following sentence: "The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms." So the topic would be: Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week. I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week. a.

6 9

Preliminary Report of ICANN Board meeting 27 Aug 2009
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Hello All, Below are the preliminary notes from the ICANN Board meeting on 27 Aug 2009. Point of interest to the GNSO include: - location of the June 2010 meeting will be Brussels - Wolfgang Kleinwächter as the 2010 NomCom Chair - the Board approved the Bylaws amendments to allow new Council to be seated at the October 2009 ICANN meeting in Seoul (note the Board did not specify any need to be seated at the beginning of the week - to the new Council could be seated at the end of the week if that is what the GNSO decides) - the Board "acknowledges that amendments may be needed regarding the types of new Constituencies that may be created in the future within the Non-Contracted Parties House, and Board review of the overall Stakeholder Group and Constituency structure is needed in the future" - the Board also directed the Staff to "draft and post for public comment additional proposed Bylaws amendments as necessary to facilitate the continued transition to the new GNSO structures, processes and mechanisms, including but not limited to amendments limiting the types of new Constituencies that may be created in the future within the Non-Contracted Parties House." (note this picked up some of the discussion that has occurred on the GNSO Council list in the last couple of weeks around the concerns of the commercial stakeholder group on the formation of new constituencies) - the Board will "review the structures and operations of Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies in one year and every three years after that." (this picked up on the request from the non-commercial stakeholder group to review the charter after a year). - the Board decided not to go ahead with the recommendation of the Boston Consulting Group to reduce its size - the Board agreed in principle to "add one voting director appointed from the At Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors, and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board" Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-27aug09.htm Preliminary Report of the Special Board Meeting 27 August 2009 [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] Note: This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but does provide a preliminary attempt setting forth the unapproved reporting of the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Board's Minutes, when approved by the board at a future meeting. A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference 27 August 2009 @ 03.00 UTC. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush promptly called the meeting to order. In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Roberto Gaetano (Vice Chairman), Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Raimundo Beca, Steve Crocker, Steven Goldstein, Dennis Jennings, Raymond A. Plzak, Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, and Katim Touray. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Thomas Roessler, TLG Liaison; Wendy Seltzer, ALAC Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison. Rita Rodin Johnston and Rajasekhar Ramaraj were not present for the meeting. This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 27 August 2009 A. Consent Agenda ================= ================= 1. Approval of Minutes from 30 July 2009 Special Board Meeting =============================================================== Resolved (2009.08.27.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 30 July 2009 Board Meeting. 2. Approval of Minutes from 26 June 2009 Special Board Meeting – closed session on CEO Compensation and Agreement Structure ================================================= Resolved (2009.08.27.02), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 26 June 2009 Closed Session Board Meeting. 3. From the Board Finance Committee – Transfer of $11 million US Dollars from working capital to a restricted reserve investment fund =========================================================================== Whereas, the ICANN Board adopted the Investment Policy in November 2007; Whereas the Board endorsed the ICANN Investment Policy and adopted minor amendments to the Investment Policy on 30 July 2009. Whereas, at its 14 July 2009 meeting the Board Finance Committee reviewed the plans to transfer $11 million from working capital to the Board restricted Reserve Fund in accordance with the policy requirements for the working capital level to be equivalent to three months of operating expenses Resolved (2009.08.27.03), that the Board approves the recommendation of the BFC that the CFO be directed to transfer $11 million from working capital to the Board restricted Reserve Fund 4. From the Board Governance Committee – Nominating Committee Chair Selection ============================================================================== Whereas the BGC is tasked each year with recommending to the Board a candidate to serve as the Nominating Committee (“NomCom”) Chair; Whereas the BGC called for expressions of interest from all who would be interested in serving as the 2010 NomCom Chair; Whereas the BGC considered and discussed all legitimate expressions of interest; and Whereas the BGC recommends that the Board appoint Wolfgang Kleinwächter as the 2010 NomCom Chair. Resolved (2009.08.27.04), that Wolfgang Kleinwächter is appointed as Chair of the 2010 NomCom, to serve until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2010, or until the Chair's earlier resignation, removal, or other disqualification from service. 5. From the Board Public Participation Committee ================================================ a. ICANN Meetings Selection of Dates for 2011, 2012, 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------- ICANN MEETING DATES / GEOGRAPHIC ROTATION 2011 - 2013 2011 13-18 March 2011 No. 40 | North America (Tentative) 19-24 June 2011 No. 41 | Asia (Tentative) 23-28 October 2011 No. 42 | Africa (Tentative) 2012 11-16 March 2012 No. 43 | Latin America (Tentative) 24-29 June 2012 No. 44 | Europe (Tentative) 14-19 October 2012 No. 45 | North America (Tentative) 2013 07-12 April 2013 No. 46 | Asia (Tentative) 14-19 July 2013 No. 47 | Africa (Tentative) 17-22 November 2013 No. 48 | Latin America (Tentative) Whereas, ICANN intends to hold Meetings in 2011, 2012 and 2013 as per its policy; Whereas, the dates proposed in this paper were published for public comment for a period of 30 days ending 14 August 2009; Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the public comments received, and has used those comments to develop the scheduled dates of ICANN Meetings; Resolved (2009.08.27.05) that the Board accepts the dates of Meetings to be held in 2011, 2012 and 2013. b. Approval of Budget and Designation of location for the ICANN Meeting in June 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its second 2010 Meeting in the European region as per its policy; Whereas, the European Registry of Internet Domain Names (EURid) was one of the entities that submitted a viable proposal to serve as host for the 2010 European Meeting; Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the EURid proposal and finds it acceptable; Whereas, the Board Finance Committee will review and is expected to approve the budget for the ICANN 2010 European Meeting as proposed in this paper on August 17; Resolved (2009.08.27.06) that the Board accepts the EURid proposal and approves that the ICANN 2010 European Meeting shall be held in Brussels, Belgium from 21-25 June 2010, with a budget not to exceed US$2.094M. Resolutions 2009.08.27.01; 2009.08.27.02; 2009.08.27.03; 2009.08.27.04; 2009.08.27.05; and 2009.08.27.06 were approved in a single vote approving the consent agenda items. All Board Members present unanimously approved these resolutions. B. Regular Agenda ================= ================== 1. From the Board Governance Committee - Board/GAC Working Group – Selection of Co-Chair and Board Membership =========================================================================================== The Board discussed the process for identifying and recommending membership on working groups and identifying the leadership positions for the same. The Board then took the following action: Whereas on 26 June 2009, the Board resolved to establish a Board/GAC joint working group; Whereas the Board requested the BGC to nominate five Board members, one of whom to serve as cochair, to serve on the Board/GAC joint working group; Whereas the BGC has selected five Board members to serve as members of the Board/GAC joint working group and identified one of those five members as cochair of the working group; and Whereas the BGC agreed to recommend that the Board approve the BGC selections for the Board/GAC joint working group; Resolved (2009.08.27.07) that the Board members of the Board/GAC joint working group shall be Raimundo Beca, Ram Mohan, Raymond Plzak (cochair), Jean-Jacques Subrenat, and Katim Touray. Eleven of the Board members present approved of this resolution. Two of the Board members present abstained from voting. The resolution passed 2. Board Approval of the proposed Bylaws Amendments to enable the seating of the New GNSO Council in Seoul ========================================================================================== The Board received an update from Staff on the proposed Bylaws Amendments required to enable the seating of the New GNSO Council in Seoul, including a summary of the recent public comment forum and a description of how specific comments were addressed in the proposed Bylaws Amendments or recommended for future action in addressing those comments. The Board discussed this update, and discussed the insertion of a commitment to review the Stakeholder Group charters after 1 year, including a review of the continuing necessity of the constituency structures, and then took the following action: Whereas, the transition to a new GNSO Council requires Bylaws Amendments to reflect new GNSO structures, processes and mechanisms; Whereas, the GNSO community and ICANN Staff have developed specific Bylaws Amendments and recommendations to implement these changes and allow for the new GNSO Council to be seated at the October 2009 ICANN meeting in Seoul; Whereas, two separate comment forums were held to solicit public input and the Amendments pending for Board action incorporate several comments and Board guidance; Whereas, the Board acknowledges that amendments may be needed regarding the types of new Constituencies that may be created in the future within the Non-Contracted Parties House, and Board review of the overall Stakeholder Group and Constituency structure is needed in the future; Resolved (2009.08.27.08), the Board approves the complete package of Bylaws amendments proposed; Resolved Further (2009.08.27.09) that the Board directs the Staff to draft and post for public comment additional proposed Bylaws amendments as necessary to facilitate the continued transition to the new GNSO structures, processes and mechanisms, including but not limited to amendments limiting the types of new Constituencies that may be created in the future within the Non-Contracted Parties House. Resolved Further (2009.08.27.10) that the Board will review the structures and operations of Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies in one year and every three years after that. All Board Members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. 3. Assignment of Staff to Development of a Global Policy Proposal for "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" ===================================================================================== The Board discussed the Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number Resource Policies Forwarded for Ratification by the ASO Address Council in Accordance with the ASO MoU and then took the following action: Whereas, Article 1 of the Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number Resource Policies Forwarded for Ratification by the ASO Address Council in Accordance with the ASO MoU (Board's Review Procedures), states “When, in accordance with step 1 in the GlobalPolicy Development Process of the ASO MoU (Attachment A, article 1), ICANN staff liaising with the addressing community becomes aware of a global policy development within the scope of the ASO MoU, ICANN staff informs the ICANN Board of this development. The Board decides, as and when appropriate, that this development should be followed by ICANN staff and instructs the ICANN CEO to assign staff for this purpose. ICANN staff so assigned shall inform all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, shall establish an ICANN web page to be kept up to date and shall compile a background report to be kept up to date on this global policy development. This background report shall be provided to the Board as requested.”; Whereas, ICANN staff has informed the Board that a Global Policy Proposal for "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries", entailing a date change in the adopted Global Policy with identical name, has entered the first adoption steps within the individual RIRs as well as being recognized by the ASO Address Council as a valid Global Policy Proposal; and Whereas, the Global Policy Proposal for "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" is identified as a global policy development within the scope of the ASO MoU with ICANN. Resolved (2009.27.08.11) that the Board directs that the development of a Global Policy Proposal for "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" be followed by ICANN staff as set forth within the Board's Review Procedures and instructs the ICANN CEO to assign staff for this purpose. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. 4. Redelegation of .CV (Cape Verde) Domain =========================================== The Board discussed the proposed redelegation and the redelegation process. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, the .CV top‐level domain is the designated country‐code for Cape Verde. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .CV to the Cape Verde Agencia Nacional das Comunicacoes. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the best interest of the local and global Internet communities. Resolved (2009.27.08.12), that the proposed redelegation of the .CV domain to the Agencia Nacional das Comunicacoes is approved. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. 5. Discussion regarding Structural Improvements Committee's receipt of Board Review Working Group Recommendations ===================================================================================== a. Size of ICANN Board ---------------------- The Board received an update from Staff on the work of the Board review Working Group and the recommendation regarding a change to the size of the ICANN Board. The Board then took the following action: Whereas the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), the external consultants conducting the independent review of the Board of Directors, recommended that the size of the ICANN Board be reduced to increase effectiveness and efficiency; Whereas the Board Review Working Group (BRWC) has reached a final position relating to the BCG recommendation on the size of the Board and determined that the import of the issue required forwarding to the Structural Improvements Committee and Board prior to the issuance of a Final Report; Whereas the BRWG determined that a reduction of the size of the ICANN Board is not advisable at this time, as the intended effects of increasing effectiveness and efficiency are not likely to be met, and are based upon comparisons to corporate businesses which do not align with ICANN's mission and objectives; Whereas the BRWG recommends measures intended to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Board, including requesting the ICANN Board Governance Committee to define processes for the delegation of work from the Board to ICANN management, and inviting the ICANN CEO to investigate the Board/Staff interaction on matters to be considered by the Board and ways to reduce the workload of each. After these measures are implemented, the BRWG recommends a reconsideration of the BCG recommendation in three years time, to allow for assessment of the effects of the measures on increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Board; and Whereas at its 17 August 2009 meeting the SIC reviewed the recommendation of the BRWG and unanimously approved of favorably receiving the BRWG recommendation and forwarding to the Board for discussion and implementation. IT IS RESOLVED (2009.08.27.13) that the recommendation of the BRWG to not decrease the size of the Board of Directors at this time is approved. The Board directs the Board Governance Committee to provide clarification on possible delegation of work from the ICANN Board to management. The Board also invites the CEO to investigate Board/Staff interaction and ways to reduce the workload of the Board on issues intended for Board consideration. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED (2009.08.27.14) that the feasibility of decreasing the size of the Board of Directors should be rediscussed in three years time, to allow an assessment of the effects of the several measures intended to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Board. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. b. Voting Director Appointed from the At Large ---------------------------------------------- The Board received an update from Staff regarding the Board review Working Group recommendation for the inclusion of a voting director appointed from the At Large. The Board discussed some potential implementation hurdles that must be resolved, though recognized that approving of the recommendation in principle would then allow for the planning of the implementation. The Board then took the following action: Whereas on 21 May 2009 the Board of Directors previously considered a recommendation from the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) requesting approval in principle of the idea that voting directors should be appointed from the At Large, as recommended in the ALAC Review Working Group, and the Board requested the SIC to provide additional scenarios and recommendations for how such an addition of voting directors may be achieved; Whereas the SIC determined that this matter could be appropriately addressed within the ongoing work of the Board Review Working Group (BRWG), as it was already addressing issues related to the size of the Board; Whereas on 12 August 2009 the BRWG issued a recommendation to add one voting director to the Board appointed by the At Large community, in substitution of the present ALAC liaison to the Board, and voted to present this recommendation to the SIC and the Board prior to the presentation of the forthcoming BRWG Final Report; Whereas the recommendation issued by the BRWG was a compromise solution among the BRWG members; and Whereas the SIC reviewed the BRWG recommendation at its 17 August 2009 meeting and approved the receiving of this recommendation and forwarding of the recommendation to the Board for discussion and implementation. Resolved (2009.08.27.15) that the recommendation of the BRWG to add one voting director appointed from the At Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors, and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board, is approved in principle for implementation. Staff is directed to identify all steps required to achieve the implementation of this principle, after issuing of the BRWG Final Report. All Board members present unanimously approved of this resolution. The Chair congratulated the Board in reaching this decision. 6. GNSO Council Restructuring Efforts Update ============================================== The Board received an update from Staff on the status of other efforts underway on the GNSO Council Restructuring process, including the ongoing work in the drafting work teams and Staff's communications with the proposed constituencies as directed by the Board at its 30 July 2009 meeting. 7. JPA Progress Report – CEO Briefing ===================================== A confidential discussion was held on the progress of the JPA discussions. 8. Other Business ================== The Board received an update from the Chair on planning for the upcoming Board retreat. 9. Executive Session – Board Only ================================== The Board conducted an executive session without staff present, in confidence. The meeting adjourned at approximately 05.30 UTC.

1 0

OSC Status Report
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 1, 2009

Sept. 1, 2009

Here is a brief status report for the three OSC work teams. Chuck OSC Report for Council Meeting 3 Sep 09 GNSO Council Operations WT (GCOT) * The WT continues meeting weekly. * Excellent progress is being made on the elements of the Council Rules of Procedure that are needed before seating the bicameral Council in Seoul. * The WT plans to hold an in-person meeting in Seoul with teleconference access. GNSO Constituency/SG Operations WT (CSG WT) * The WT continues to hold biweekly teleconference calls and subgroups continue to work on specific tasks. * Final edits are being made to draft recommendations regarding a toolkit of in kind services for constituencies and SGs should be distributed to the Council shortly. * Special effort is being made to finish a recommendations document on time to be considered by the Board on September 30. * The WT plans to hold an in-person meeting in Seoul with teleconference access. Communications WT * No change in status.

1 0

NCUC statement on vertical integration
by Mary Wong Sept. 1, 2009

Sept. 1, 2009

Hi all To help move things along at Thursday's meeting, I'm attaching NCUC's statement on the issue of Registry/Registrar vertical integration to this email. I hope it will clarify some of the questions that some of you may have about why NCUC believes this is a policy issue for the GNSO. I would have sent it before today, but I took the weekend to see if other NCUC members had final comments or additions to make to it. Thank you! Best, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0