January 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

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

FW: Public Meet Up with ICANN¹s CEO in Washington, DC on 27th January
by Glen de Saint Géry 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Forwarded From: Donna Austin on behalf of Rod Beckstrom _______ Dear Chuck and GNSO members As you know, I believe that ICANN's CEO should be accessible to the community, but also to those who may not regularly participate in ICANN's processes but are interested in the important work we do. As a part of this effort, I've started holding what I call "Meet Ups" where I make myself available in an informal setting when I travel and my schedule allows. To help ensure as many of people as possible are able to attend if they want, we announce these as far in advance as we can. All you need to bring are your thoughts, ideas, or questions and enough coin to buy your favourite form of refreshment. Here are all the details. If you have any questions, please send an email to my Chief of Staff, Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org>. Date: 27th January 2010 17:00 to 19:00 local time Place: Buffalo Billiards, Victorian Room, 1330 19th Street, Washington DC 20036 Map: http://tinyurl.com/yakmr9t I hope to see you there! Warmly Rod Rod Beckstrom President & CEO ICANN

3 3

Draft GNSO Council minutes 28 January 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 03 Feb '10

03 Feb '10

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 28 January 2010. Please let me know if you would like any changes to be made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#jan on Wednesday, 10 February 2010. 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

2 1

RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
by Tim Ruiz 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

I completely agree with Caroline, and no footnote necessary in my opinion. There were no questions or objections raised regarding that sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the letter. But if there are objections to that then we should at least follow through with what we voted to do and go with option 1. Let's not make this overly complicated, these comments need to be submitted on time. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer(a)mtld.mobi> Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 9:06 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "GNSO Council List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> I see no reason why we would not include the sentence, minus the brackets, to help support the arguments in that paragraph around needing additional representation. We could add a footnote to show that this statement is supported by accounts shown in the FY10 Operating Plan & Budget [page 15]. So, option 3 for me. Thanks. Caroline. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 29 January 2010 13:58 To: William Drake; GNSO Council List Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint(a)peacock.verisign.com; _Glen=22?= Subject: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] First of all, let's not submit the comments until we resolve this in some way. I think there are three things we can do that I talk about below: Submit the comments as is with the statement and the bracketsRemove the sentence from the commentsLeave the sentence but remove the brackets. In our meeting yesterday, we approved the letter with the statement in brackets, so we probably do not need any additional action to do option 1; if we do this we can literally leave it as is, which is what we approved, or add a footnote to explain the brackets, maybe something like this: "There was not unanimous support for including this sentence." If we choose options 2 or 3, I believe we should insert a footnote that explains what was done and why. The comments are due by 10 February, which is 8 days before our next meeting, so we need to resolve this before then. To get that process started, it might help to get a sense of where varous Councilors are on this. To do that, I would like to ask as many Councilors as possible to respond on this list to the following: Which of the options do your prefer and why? (1, 2, 3, none) Based on the responses received, we can then discuss how to reach final resolution. Whatever we do, I think it is important to understand that the bracketed statement is accurate so it is not a matter of accuracy but rather a matter of whether we want to say it or not. Chuck From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:06 AM To: GNSO Council List Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22G=E9ry_de_Saint(a)peacock.verisign.com; _Glen=22?=; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] Hi Glen asked for the final letter with the two amendments agreed yesterday inserted for posting, and as I looked at it I realized that we passed a motion accepting a letter that still has a non-agreed item in brackets: [This sentence has been suggested but there is not consensus in the drafting team, so TBD: “It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities.”] Sorry, missed that. So what do we do? Bill On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:58 AM To: William Drake; Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Importance: High ICANN's budget reports show that fees from gTLD registrars and registries account for over 93% of ICANN's revenue. It is a well established fact. At-Large members pay fees via registrars and do not contribute anything directly. I couldn't find literatures in the dictionary but if you want to leave it fine. We really need to send this out now, even if more edits are needed later. Chuck From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:04 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter Hi On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> wrote: One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read: "...it is important..." Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around.. On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Nice job Bill. Two minor, nonmaterial edits: In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to "literature". But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of thought. Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one literature mentioned would have led to a different conclusion. The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." I think it should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each of the relevant AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic." Ditto the above I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council list as soon as possible with a request that all Councilors forward it to their respective groups immediately for review and discussion, noting that the Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January. Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address Kristina's points: On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: Apologies for belated comments. This looks great. Many thanks to you all for drafting. I have two questions: 1) What is the point we are trying to make regarding alternates? Are we simply raising the possibility without taking a position? I was not entirely clear on that. Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but nobody really argued that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily imagine objections to/issues with the approach. Moreover, if there were alternates, one could argue (not persuasively, but still...) that this makes the need for multiple GNSO participants less important. So the wording was intended to put the idea on the table as something that might be considered without implying it might be a substitute for multiple slots. If people think it doesn't work and it'd be better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do that, let me know. 2) Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct? I ask only b/c I would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for more. I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion. Obviously, there are registrants (and non-registrants) in both GNSO and ALAC, some people (e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and some people are nominally represented by both even if they're not active participants, so putting people into mutually exclusive boxes doesn't work and such language can be viewed as murky from some perspectives...Thoughts? Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

4 4

Results of absentee ballot on motion to commence a PDP on Vertical Integration, Thursday 28 January 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

Dear Councillors, Please find the results of the motion to commence a Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh and seconded by Debra Hughes with amendments Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on vertical integration between registries and registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council; Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO Council delay the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the issue for a period of 1-2 years; Whereas, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Issues Report, the GNSO Council has decided to initiate a PDP on vertical integration between registries and registrars; and Whereas, the GNSO Council has decided against initiating a Task Force as defined in the ICANN Bylaws; Now therefore, be it: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council has reviewed the recommendations contained in the Issues Report, and nonetheless approves the initiation of a PDP on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; FURTHER RESOLVED, that the PDP shall evaluate which policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs, as may be possible under existing contracts and as allowed under the ICANN Bylaws; FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council shall convene a Working Group to fulfill the requirements of the PDP, including a review of ICANN Staff's prior work with respect to vertical integration, and develop recommendations accordingly; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Working Group shall deliver its Final Report to the GNSO Council no later than sixteen weeks from the date of this resolution. The motion carried by a roll call vote Contracted Party House - 7 votes against the motion Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder Registrar Stakeholder Group; Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer One absentee ballot against - Registrar Stakeholder Group: Adrian Kinderis Non Contracted Party House -11 Votes in favour -2 votes against Votes in favour: Zahid Jamil, Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC); Kristina Rosette, David Taylor (IPC); Rafik Dammak, William Drake, Mary Wong, Rosemary Sinclair, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer (NCSG). Votes against: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP) One absentee ballot in favour - Olga Cavalli; Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) The motion to commence a Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration carried. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
by Tim Ruiz 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

The alternative language Kristina suggests sounds fine to me. Since it is just a clarifying of what was intended anyway, can we get by with confirming via the list that there are no further objections? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 1:56 pm To: "GNSO Council List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I had originally flagged that language because it was not clear to me whether the reference to GNSO included individuals, which should, if we're being accurate, then require reference to At Large. I did not pick up on it through inadvertent oversight, not because it was not an issue. Now that I've read the actual report, I think the language is inaccurate because the report refers to "generic name registrants". (I assume reference to generic is used in contract to cc names.) I could live with "It might also be noted that registrants in gTLDs, the policies for which are developed by the GNSO, pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities." Or, we could just take it out. K -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 2:33 PM To: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] Bill, What I meant was that no objections were raised during the full Council discussion and vote. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 11:44 am To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: There were no questions or objections raised regarding that sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the letter. On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later.

4 3

Volunteers for Charter Drafting Team for Vertical Integration PDP
by Gomes, Chuck 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

In follow-up to Council approval to initiate a Vertical Integration PDP and specifically the action item to form a drafting team to develop a charter for that PDP, I am hereby requesting volunteers for the DT. Volunteers need not be Councilors. If you or someone in your SG/Constituency/AC want to volunteer for this WT, please respond on this list not later than 9 February. Chuck

3 3

FW: Ballot on Motion to Commence a Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Jan '10

31 Jan '10

Forwarded From: Olga Cavalli Sent: samedi 30 janvier 2010 00:18 * On the motion I vote: * [x ] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: yellow-4 This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 12:54UTC on Thursday 28 January 2010. (Completed ballots are due NLT 12:54 UTC, Sunday, 31 January 2010; Buenos Aires 09:55) Motion to commence A Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh and seconded by Debra Hughes with friendly amendments. Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on vertical integration between registries and registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council; Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO Council delay the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the issue for a period of 1-2 years; Whereas, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Issues Report, the GNSO Council has decided to initiate a PDP on vertical integration between registries and registrars; and Whereas, the GNSO Council has decided against initiating a Task Force as defined in the ICANN Bylaws; Now therefore, be it: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council has reviewed the recommendations contained in the Issues Report, and nonetheless approves the initiation of a PDP on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; FURTHER RESOLVED, that the PDP shall evaluate which policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs, as may be possible under existing contracts and as allowed under the ICANN Bylaws; FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council shall convene a Working Group to fulfill the requirements of the PDP, including a review of ICANN Staff's prior work with respect to vertical integration, and develop recommendations accordingly; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Working Group shall deliver its Final Report to the GNSO Council no later than sixteen weeks from the date of this resolution. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org tel : +33 (0) 9 524 570 44 Voice mail: +33 4 93 45 21 27 Cell + 33 6 21 79 24 54 Blackberry email: gnso(a)mobileemail.vodafone.fr<mailto:gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr>

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
by Tim Ruiz 30 Jan '10

30 Jan '10

Bill, What I meant was that no objections were raised during the full Council discussion and vote. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 11:44 am To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: There were no questions or objections raised regarding that sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the letter. On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later.

4 3

ICANN Board meeting agenda - 4 February 2010
by Bruce Tonkin 29 Jan '10

29 Jan '10

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-04feb10-en.htm Board Meeting - Agenda 4 February 2010 Consent Agenda: =============== 1.Consent Agenda Resolution: a. Minutes of 9 December 2009 Meeting b. Minutes of 22 January 2010 Meeting c. puntCAT Contract Amendment re One and Two Character Names d. .IN Redelegation Request e. Recommendation from Finance Committee regarding FY10 Budget Main Board Meeting: =================== 2. President's Report 3. Approval of Strategic Plan for 2010-2013 4. Adoption of Event Security Risk, Contracts and Cancellation Management Policy 5. Nairobi Security & Risk Mitigation Planning Update 6. New gTLDs a. Expressions of Interest in new gTLDs b. Vertical Integration (Registry-Registrar Separation) c. Relaxing 3-Character Requirement for gTLDs 7. Update on ICANN Proposed Security Initiatives in Response to Affirmation and IANA Contract Requirements 8. Recommendation from Board Governance Committee for Consideration of Board Chairman Remuneration 9. ICANN Media Relations Report 10. Recommendations of Ombudsman File 09-58 11. Update on IDNs 12. Any Other Business 13. Executive Session

1 0