September 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Updates: Geo Regions - ccNSO - Travel drafting team
by Olga Cavalli Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

Hi, these are the updates for ccnso, geo regions and travel drafting team. Please note that: - In relation with ccnso - indpdpwg1, there is a document wich is available now for working team comments and will also be after the next conference call expected soon.GNSO should exchange ideas on how the Council wants to make this document´s revision and comments. - GNSO should exchange ideas about retiring councillors that would need funding to go to Seoul meeting. This information should be sent to ICANN Staff asap. Regards Olga *ccNSO update:* ccnso-idnpdpwg1 working team: ICANN staff has prepared a first draft Topic Paper , which is being reviewed by the working team. The document is attached. 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. *Geo Regions:* The innitial Working Group Report was available for public comments. It attempts to identify the various applications and functions to which “ICANN Geographic Regions” are currently applied by existing ICANN structures. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#geo-regions-review A new teleconference of the working group is expected to take place soon. *Travel Drafting Team:* As mentioned in previous messages sent to the GNSO Council, Kevin Wilson informed us that there is some flexibility for additional support to travel so Seoul for retiring GNSO councellors. GNSO should send the information about this names asap, so far these expression of interest for funding have been sent to the GNSO list: *ISPCP Council members* - Tony Holmes - Funded to attend NomCom meeting in Seoul, would need additional hotel/per diem funding. - Tony Harris - Would need full funding for Seoul. GNSO should confirm who else would be interested in this funding and formally make the request to ICANN Staff asap. A face to face meeting of the travel drafting team will be scheduled with ICANN staff during the ICANN Seoul meeting. Once the date and time are established, this information will be sent to the drafting team list.

2 2

OSC WT Report
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

Here's the OSC work team report in advance of our 24 Sep Council meeting. Chuck Gomes

1 0

Motion to Approve Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures for Public Comment
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

I am submitting the following motion for action in our 24 September 2009 meeting to approve Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures for Public Comment. The motion is also posted on the wiki at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_sept_motions. Questions, comments and proposed amendments are welcome as is a second. Chuck Gomes Motion to Approve Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures for Public Comment 17 September 2009 Whereas: * On 27 August 2009 the ICANN Board approved Bylaws Amendments Related to GNSO Restructuring ( http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-amendments-27aug09.pdf <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-amendments-27aug09.pdf> ) in support of the transition to a new GNSO Council to be seated during the ICANN annual general meetings in Seoul in October 2009. * The existing Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council ( http://gnso.icann.org/council/new-procedures.shtml <http://gnso.icann.org/council/new-procedures.shtml> ) require revision to accommodate the new Council structure. * The GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) established by the GNSO Operations Steering Committee (OSC) identified areas of the existing Rules that needed to be revised in order to seat the new Council, developed recommendations for updating those areas and submitted them to the OSC for review and comment. * The OSC reviewed and suggested a few edits to the GCOT recommendations. * The GNSO Council would like to provide the opportunity to receive public comments before the procedures are approved. The GNSO Council Resolves to: * Sincerely thank the GCOT for its work in preparing the Draft Operating Procedures. * Approve the attached draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures for public comment. * Request ICANN Staff initiate a 21-day public comment period as soon as possible.

2 2

RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

So a quorum might exist but the actual votes counted may not represent a quorum? Seems that if there were a large number of abstentions an action of the Council could be decided by a pretty small number. I think we need to give the various scenarious more thought. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Mon, September 21, 2009 2:47 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Fellow Council Members, Background one issue debated but unresolved by the drafting team is the oddity in Council voting over abstentions. To date an abstention has counted as a vote against the motion because of the way the old by-laws were written. I believe this is no longer the case in the new by-laws and so the decision is up to us as Council as to what we want to put in our internal rules (the operating procedures). The current draft continues the old practise. Proposal I would like to propose an amendment to the draft op. procedures as follows: 5.4 "Abstentions will count towards the establishment of a quorum but do not count as votes cast." This will mean an abstention is just that a decision to not vote. At present it is not the case.(The ability to state why a member abstains remains). The only rationale for the current situation is the the same rule applies for the Board. To my mind there are reasons why a Board may have such a rule that are not relevant to a policy development body such as Council. Is everyone happy to make this change ? Philip

3 2

Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions
by Rosette, Kristina Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

I support. Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: 'Council GNSO' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Mon Sep 21 03:47:24 2009 Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions Fellow Council Members, Background one issue debated but unresolved by the drafting team is the oddity in Council voting over abstentions. To date an abstention has counted as a vote against the motion because of the way the old by-laws were written. I believe this is no longer the case in the new by-laws and so the decision is up to us as Council as to what we want to put in our internal rules (the operating procedures). The current draft continues the old practise. Proposal I would like to propose an amendment to the draft op. procedures as follows: 5.4 "Abstentions will count towards the establishment of a quorum but do not count as votes cast." This will mean an abstention is just that a decision to not vote. At present it is not the case.(The ability to state why a member abstains remains). The only rationale for the current situation is the the same rule applies for the Board. To my mind there are reasons why a Board may have such a rule that are not relevant to a policy development body such as Council. Is everyone happy to make this change ? Philip

1 0

Letter from U.S.Senate to Rod Beckstrom
by Anthony Harris Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

Dear fellow councillors, In case you may have missed seeing this, please find the link below to a letter addressed to Rod Beckstrom. ttp://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-15sep09-en.pdf Perhaps at least those of us who were part of the Council working group, that spent close to three years drafting the requirements for a new round of gTLD applications, will find it of interest. Tony Harris

1 0

Fwd: GNSO Closed Meeting
by Avri Doria Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date: 17 September 2009 17:31:03 GMT+02:00 > Subject: GNSO Closed Meeting > > Chuck, Adrian, Avri, Mary, Stephane & Kristina > > I cannot post on the Council list, but would appreciate this getting > forwarded. > > I strongly object to any closed formal meetings of the Council > during the weekend preceding the ICANN meeting for a gripe session > or frankly for any reason. I have attended each of the pre-meetings > of the ICANN meetings for the past I am not sure how many meetings > despite not being on the Council. I am technically an officer of a > constituency, but never attend those meetings in that capacity and > would still object even if I were included. > > I participate in these meetings because I truly believe it is where > a lot of the real discussion takes place. The formal GNSO Council > meetings on the Wednesday are more show than discussion. Maybe it > is because there has been so much discussion prior to the Wednesday > meeting that everyone has formulated their opinions, or maybe > Councilors are not comfortable having the discussions up on the > stage, who knows. The reason is not so important. > > But there is a HUGE amount of policy topics and discussions that > need to take place on Saturday and Sunday. Its hard enough to find > time to schedule working group meetings during those days (where > many Councilors participate). To take up this precious time to do a > closed gripe session is not only bad for the reasons stated by Avri > and others, but may also disrespectful to other members of the GNSO > Community that do come early to the meetings to work on policy. > > If you want to have dinner (after the end of the formal day “on your > own time”), I have no objection to that. That may be a good idea. > But I ask that we not use valuable policy development time for > this. After all, its not really GNSO Council Time, but technically, > GNSO Community time. > > There is just too much to do. > > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 > Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: > +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error > and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the > original message. >

4 3

Re: [council] GNSO Council meet and greet?
by Rosette, Kristina Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

I would support both sessions on the condition that both are closed and participation is limited to Councilors and relevant staff. (I wouldn't necessarily object to including Constituency officers.) I also believe the morning session should be neither recorded nor transcribed. Neither is conducive to the level of candor that the productivity of the session requires. Having the sessions be open seems likely to decrease their utility. Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wed Sep 16 03:47:01 2009 Subject: [council] GNSO Council meet and greet? All, As most of you will remember, on behalf of the registrars, I suggested on the recent GNSO Council call that we should try to create a number (two) fora in which we could get together and interact on a social and informal level, especially in light of the introduction of new Councillors. I am not sure how much detail is required but here are my previous suggestions that I sent Glen previously. I think we should do two events. The first would be to create an agenda item on the Saturday morning where we could simply go around the room and introduce ourselves and discuss openly any areas of concern - specifically to do with the Council itself (points of view, voting etc). I know the registrars for example would say that they are a little sick and tired of being pigeonholed simply because they have commercial interests. I'm sure other groups would have pet hates too. Secondly I think we should have a social gathering on the Saturday evening (perhaps just a few pre-dinner drinks if the budget doesn't allow too much) where GNSO Councillors both new and old and ICANN staff (those that interact regularly with the Council perhaps) can gather once again for the purpose of getting to know new members better and, more importantly, for each Constituency (Stakeholder Group) be able to convey their distinct and perhaps unique perspectives on the Council and the issues that are before us. That said, it is a social event. It is more about getting to know the personalities that make up the GNSO Council. I believe that we would need a show of support for these ideas in order for this to happen. Can I please get your ideas/ thoughts/ suggestions or support to the list please? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

14 18

Letter from members of the US House Committee on the Judiciary to ICANN
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

Hello All, You may be interested in recent correspondence received by ICANN that related to new gTLDs. See: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ There is a letter co-authored by Afilias, PIR and Neustar on registry/registrar vertical integration, and a letter from Enom on the same topic. Most recently there is a letter from members of the USA House Committee of the Judiciary. From: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-15sep09-en. pdf It states: Dear Mr Beckstrom, Congratulations on your recent appointment as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). You assume responsibility of the principle private sector organization charged with maintaining the security and stability of the global Internet at a critical juncture. The contemporaneous consideration of the rollout of an unrestricted number of generic top level domains (gTLDS) in conjunction with the scheduled expiration of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) presents historic challenges and turning points in Internet Governance. As senior leaders of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over matters that relate to criminal justice, competition and intellectual property rights, we have a longstanding interest in matters that affect the domain name system (DNS). In this capacity, we would like to share with you our concerns regarding the proposed new generic domain name expansion and the expiration of the JPA. It has come to our attention that the proposed unlimited expansion of gTLDS will likely result in serious negative consequences for U.S. businesses and consumers, As new gTLDs are created, many businesses fear being forced to defensively register trademarks and variations of their marks to block cybersquatters from illegitimately trading on their good will and to protect consumers from increased incidences of fraud. We note that the absence of price caps in the new registry agreements could mean that legitimate businesses with an established consumer base and Internet presence may be discriminated against and compelled to pay a premium for each new domain name they register or renew. We also note that the record concerning the impact this proposed expansion will have on competition is woefully inadequate. To our knowledge, the only economic justification put forth thus far has been an ICANN-commissioned report that has been widely criticized for failing to include empirical data or analysis in support of its conclusion that the unrestricted expansion of gTLDs will result in net consumer benefits. We are aware that ICANN has taken some steps to respond to the concerns of intellectual property owners by establishing an Implementation Recommendation team (IRT) charged with developing specific proposals to protect intellectual property interests. However, we note with disappointment that serious consideration of these interests did not occur in the normal course of ICANN's policy development process, and the IRT was formed only after considerable public outcry arose from the business and intellectual property communities. We further note that decisions regarding the execution of the IRT's recommendations have not been publicly announced as well as our concern that it appears such disclosures are not intended to be made available to the public prior to the scheduled expiration of the JPA. This apparent time-line reinforces the perception that ICANN decision-making processes lack critical transparency and accountability. Given the late consideration of intellectual property concerns, the lack of a credible independent analysis on competition issues in the context of proposals to expand gTLD's, as well as ICANN's less-than-stellar track record on a variety of other issues (enforcement of registrar obligations, accuracy of publicly available Whois data), we have serious misgivings about the prospect of terminating the formal relationship between the U.S. Government and ICANN that is currently represented by the JPA. In the interests of better understanding ICANN's position on these and related matters, we will appreciate your providing the Committee with answers to the following questions: 1. Which of the recommendations of the IRT does ICANN plan to implement? What is the justification for not publicly announcing such decisions prior to the September 30, 2009 scheduled expiration of the JPA and instead deferring such public notice and review until publication of the new version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook? If implemented, how will the recommendations put forth by the IRT serve to reduce or eliminate the need for defensive registrations? Will any of recommendations prevent price gouging by registries and registrars? 2. Does ICANN intend to carry out a comprehensive, empirical economic study to examine the impact on competition that additional gTLDs may have? If not, what confidence can the public have that the expansion of gTLDs will improve rather than hinder, competition? Assuming the rollout goes forward, what steps will ICANN take to monitor the impact on competition in the future? 3. Do you recognize a need for and support the establishment of a permanent instrument that memorializes the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. Government? If not, what are your current thoughts on an extension of the JPA prior to its expiration on September 30, 2009? What key elements do you think should be incorporated into such as permanent or temporary agreement? What assurances do citizens of the United States have that ICANN will effectively meet the goals set out in the JPA if it or a successor agreement is not formally extended? As a final matter, we wish to associate ourselves with many of the concerns articulated by the ICANN's Government Advisory Committee in their letter of August 18, 2009 (copy enclosed) to the Chairman of ICANN's Board. We would appreciate your assessment and response to the matter detailed in that letter, particularly as they relate to the stability of the Internet and the absence of clear evidence that the introduction of new gTLDs will provide net benefits to consumers. The effects of policies adopted by ICANN transcends the narrow technical operation of the global Internet. The policy choices made and the manner they are implemented affect the rights, property and security of consumers, companies, non-governmental organizations and governments worldwide. With this enormous impact, ICANN has an obligation to ensure there are inclusive, transparent, and accountable processes that consider fully the perspectives of ALL stakeholders, before rendering significant decisions or implementing substantial policy changes. We urge you to weigh carefully the concerns expressed by us, the GAC, and other parties before finalizing a course of action and we look forward to receiving your written response by Tuesday, September 22, 2009. Sincerely, Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary Howard Coble, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition, House Committee on the Judiciary

1 0

Draft GNSO Council Agenda 24 September 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 17, 2009

Sept. 17, 2009

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 24 September 2009 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_24_sept_2009 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-24sep09.htm This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time 13:00 UTC - see below for local times (06:00 Los Angeles, 09:00 Washington DC, 14:00 London, 15:00 Brussels, 23:00 Melbourne) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins. Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members. Item 0: Roll call of Council members Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Review/amend agenda Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes (Items 1-3 15 mins) Draft Council minutes 3 September 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07336.html Item 4: Vote on motion on Vertical Separation (20 min) See motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_sept_motions Item 5: Vote on the bicameral Council transition plan, including assignment of (Nominating Committee Appointees (NCAs) (20 minutes) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/bicameral-council-seat-transition-plan-03sep09… See motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_sept_motions Item 6: Vote on Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures for Public Comment ( 15 minutes) See motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_sept_motions Item 7: Vote on Charter for joint work with SSAC on Internationalized Data Registration Working Group (15 minutes) Internationalized Data Registration Working Group draft charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/internationalized-data-registration-wg-draft-c… See motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_sept_motions Item 8: Discuss GA List (Hugh Dierker) request for election support (5 minutes) Call for nominations; as Chair http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg03137.html Item 9: Discussion of Seoul Agenda (10 minutes) Proposal by Registrars for a Council encounter session (discussion and socializing) . Inclusion of Constituency? . Open or closed? Item 10: Status Updates (20 minutes) Written status updates are encouraged ASAP before the meeting. 10. 1. Board Update - Denise Michel Board Retreat 10. 2. ccNSO Liaison update - Olga Cavalli 10. 3. Geographical Region WG update - Olga Cavalli/Zahid Jamil Public Comment: Geographic Regions Initial Report 10 . 4. Joint AC/SO Efforts 10. 4. 1. Prospective GNSO-SSAC work - Avri Doria charter discussion on agenda 10. 4. 2. RAA with ALAC - Avri Doria Council decision and charter sent to ALAC chair 10. 4. 3. Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Group (JIG) - Edmon Chung 10. 4. 3. Advisory Committees /Supporting Organisations (ACSO) Meeting in Seoul - Avri Doria 10 . 5 Policy Items 10. 5. 1. Working Groups 10. 5. 1. 1. Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) - Mike Rodenbaugh 10. 5. 1. 2. Post-Expiry Domain Name Recovery Working Group - Tim Ruiz 10. 5. 1. 3. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group - Tim Ruiz 10. 6. Drafting Teams 10. 6. 1. Travel Policy Drafting Team - Olga Cavalli 10. 6. 2. IDNG Working Group update - IDNG Draft Charter- Edmon Chung On Hold while JIG is getting underway. 10. 7. GNSO Improvement Work Teams 10. 7. 1. Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) - Marika Konings 10. 7. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT - Marika Konings 10. 7. 3. Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Communications coordination work team - Julie Hedlund 10. 7. 4. OSC Constituency operations work team - Julie Hedlund 10. 7. 5. OSC GNSO Council operations work team - Julie Hedlund 10. 8. Restructuring effort - Rob Hoggarth 10. 8. 1. Status of implementation steps - Rob Hoggarth/Margie Milam 10. 8. 2. Stakeholder Group Charters - Rob Hoggarth 10. 8. 3. Constituency Charters - Rob Hoggarth 10. 8. 4. New Constituencies - Rob Hoggarth Item 11: AOB- Action Items - Action Items (06:00 Los Angeles, 09:00 Washington DC, 14:00 London, 15:00 Brussels, 23:00 Melbourne) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 13:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4+1DST 09:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 10:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 14:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 19:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 21:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 21:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0