January 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
by Caroline Greer Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

Sounds like a good clarification. I support it as well as removal of the brackets. Thanks. ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Rosette, Kristina <krosette(a)cov.com>; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Jan 29 22:21:16 2010 Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] Kristina's suggested rewording more precisely captures what was intended in the language. Would anyone be opposed to replacing the previously braketed sentence with Kristina's version? Also, would it be okay to remove the brackets? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 2:57 PM > To: GNSO Council List > Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter > on the ARR] > > > 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. > > > >

1 0

Public Comment: Amendment of the GNSO Operating Procedures on the 2010 Selection Process for ICANN Board Seat 13
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28jan10-en.htm Public Comment: Amendment of the GNSO Operating Procedures on the 2010 Selection Process for ICANN Board Seat 13 28 January 2010 The GNSO Council is seeking comments on amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures related to the 2010 selection process for ICANN Board Seat 13. Under the ICANN Bylaws, the Contracted Party House selects the individual to fill Board Seat 13, currently held by Bruce Tonkin. Mr. Tonkin's term ends on 30 April 2010. The GNSO Council has adopted the selection process proposed by the Contracted Party House for the upcoming 2010 election. The public comment period ends on 18 February 2010. The amended GNSO Operating Procedures regarding the Board Seat 13 selection process can be viewed at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-28jan10-en.p…. Comments can be submitted to op-procedures-amendment-2010(a)icann.org, and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-procedures-amendment-2010/. Background The ICANN Bylaws specify that the GNSO has the right to select two individuals to serve on the ICANN Board, commonly referred to as Board Seats 13 and 14. Under the Bylaws, the Contracted Party House selects Board Seat 13, and the Non-Contracted Party House selects Board Seat 14. On 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved the process proposed by the Contracted Party House to select a representative to fill Board Seat 13 for the 2010 election, and amended its Operating Procedures to include this process and timeline. Because the current term for Board Seat 13 expires at the end of April 2010, the GNSO Council is proposing an expedited process for the 2010 selection of Board Seat 13, but has also specifically reserved the right to modify the election procedures before the nomination period expires if public comments raise issues or matter that merit changes to the adopted processes. The GNSO Council also tasked the GNSO Operations Work Team with the responsibility of developing the procedures for future selection of Board Seats 13 and 14 to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additional Information: A copy of the new procedures can be found here - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-28jan10-en.p… To review the ICANN Bylaws related to the selection of Board Seats 13 and 14, please refer to Article X Section 3.6 of Bylaws For more information on the GNSO Council and its operations, please refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/ To participate in the GNSO Operations Work Team activities related to this effort, please contact Glen de Saint Gery at gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Review of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) - please submit comments
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

Forwarded from Marco Lorenzoni Review of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) - please submit comments http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-11jan10.htm This is to remind you that ICANN has entrusted Items International, a private consulting firm, with the carrying out of the external review of the ccNSO. The consultants published an on-line survey <http://www.items.fr/icann_survey.php> a while ago which targets both ccTLDs and all other components of the ICANN community. Its scope is to collect mainly qualitative information which will be used by consultants to fulfill their mission; anonymity will be preserved when publishing. The survey will close on February 15th. Unfortunately, very few responses have been received from non-ccTLDs components of the communities; please consult the ccNSO review webpage <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ccnso/> where the ongoing activities are published. As representation of the public interest embodies one of ICANN's key principles, we would really appreciate if you could please participate in the survey and thus help the external reviewers produce a useful and workable report. Many thanks in advance. Links if you receive this message in text form: * Survey http://www.items.fr/icann_survey.php * ccNSO review webpage http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ccnso/ Marco Lorenzoni --------------------- ICANN Director, Organizational Review marco.lorenzoni(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234 78 69 Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Skype: marco_lorenzoni --------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

I agree. The concept if "GNSO registrants" is not one I had heard of before. Alan At 29/01/2010 02:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: >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.

1 0

Input to the Affirmation Reviews Requirements drafting team by COB Monday 1 February 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

Dear Councillors, Reminder about an action item that arose out of the Council meeting on Thursday 28 January 2010 with regard to the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review. Please provide early input to the drafting team, via the Council mailing list, on any ideas you have on how GNSO volunteers should be identified as nominees for each of the four review teams. Action Item: * The Council agreed that the drafting team, under the leadership of Bill Drake, should continue working on how GNSO volunteers should be identified as nominees for each of the four review teams. * The procedures should be presented to the Council on 10 February, 8 days before the Council meeting on 18 February 2010 for approval. * Councillors and stakeholder Groups are requested to provide input to the drafting team by COB on Monday, 1 February 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
by William Drake Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

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 3

GAC letter regarding EOI
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 28, 2010

Jan. 28, 2010

From: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush-26jan10-e n.pdf Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board ICANN Re: GAC advice to the ICANN Board regarding the EoI process Dear Peter, The GAC appreciates the efforts of the Board and staff to explore the possible benefits and downsides of an Expression of Interest (EoI) phase for the new gTLD program. GAC recognises that such a process could help provide data on key questions relating to root scaling, staff administrative workload, and the different types of strings in the first round. However, there is still significant ambiguity about the purpose of such an EoI: mere data gathering or mandatory pre-registration. GAC notes that in the latter case the EoI could have a significant impact on the new gTLD program and that it should not prejudice the treatment of some outstanding policy issues. In this context, the GAC would like to express concerns regarding the consultation process, including that: - the first call for comments in November - December 2009 had very limited visibility and duration; - the objections raised in those limited consultations were not sufficiently examined in the summary of comments prepared by staff; - no request has been made for GAC's opinion, despite the clear public policy implications of the proposal (cf. Article III Sec 6 1 c. of the Bylaws); and - if the Board takes a decision in February 2010 on the EoI, there will have been no opportunity for face-to-face community interaction on this important new proposal before the final decision (contrary to Article III, Sec. 6 2 of the Bylaws). To co-ordinate the global Domain Name System in the public interest, and make its decisions in an accountable and transparent manner as requested by the Affirmation of Commitments, ICANN must provide an opportunity for broad cross-community interaction on this important process before final decisions are made. The GAC believes that the risks raised by the current draft EoI proposal must be more thoroughly evaluated. In particular, the proposed EoI model may: - give an unfair advantage to some ICANN participants who could pre-empt the most valuable strings before the rest of the world is fully aware of the gTLD program; - allow a speculative market for "EoI application slots"; and - penalize developing country applicants, and small non-profit TLD projects that none-the-less operate in the public interest. GAC recalls its March 2007 Principles on new gTLDs and intends to provide further comments on the EoI proposal before or at the Nairobi meeting, taking into account reactions by the community and comments posted. In view of the above, the GAC therefore advises the Board to: - avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and defer it until the next ICANN Public meeting. A premature decision could trigger requests for reconsideration and further derail the discussion; - request that staff facilitate a full cross-community deliberation on the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions; and - ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents the respective interests of respondents. The GAC would welcome the Board's early consideration and response to this advice. Yours sincerely Janis Karklins Chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee, Ambassador of Latvia to France

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 28 January 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 28, 2010

Jan. 28, 2010

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 28 January, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20100128.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Ballot on Motion to Commence a Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration
by Adrian Kinderis Jan. 28, 2010

Jan. 28, 2010

* On the motion I vote: * [ ] Yes * [X] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: Green-5 This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 12:54 UTC on Thursday 28 January 2010. (Completed ballots are due NLT 12:54 UTC, Sunday, 31 January 2010) (Melbourne, Sunday, 28 January 23:54) 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 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

1 0

Two Community Teleconferences on Nairobi logistics and security issues - full detail
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 28, 2010

Jan. 28, 2010

Forwarded from Nick Ashton-Hart --- Dear Community: As a part of our efforts to provide more information for attendees and potential attendees of the Nairobi ICANN meeting, the staff are pleased to provide advance notice of an upcoming pair of teleconferences to brief you about about logistical and security arrangements, and allow you to ask questions. The teleconferences will be approximately one hour long, depending upon the length of the Q&A, and held as follows: 1. Thursday, 28th January, 0600 UTC (1130 New Delhi, 0900 Nairobi, 1400 Beijing, 1700 Sydney (for the Eastern Hemisphere) 2. Friday, 29th January, 2000 UTC (1200 Los Angeles, 1500 New York, 1700 Buenos Aires, 1800 Sao Paulo (for the Western Hemisphere) *CONNECTION INFORMATION:* Toll-Free (North America Only): +1 (800) 550-6865 / USA Toll: +1 (213) 233-3193 International Dial-In Numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Access Code: 3856 Adobe Connect: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/nairobi-logistics/ If a number your country is not listed, please send an email to support(a)adigo.com, with a subject line of 'dial out for ICANN Nairobi Call 1' for the first call, or 'dial out for ICANN Nairobi Call 2' for the second call, providing your name, full telephone number including country code, and your location up to 1 hour before the call you want to attend begins. If you drop from the call or have connection problems, you can send an IM to either adigohelp (skype or AIM). *AGENDA:* 1) Virtual Walk Through of Logistics - Nick Tomasso and Joe Kiragu Nick Tomasso, ICANN General Manager for Meetings and Conferences, will take attendees through a narrative of the logistical arrangements from the point that attendees disembark from the plane through to arrival at the hotel. Following that our Kenyan hosts will take the participants through the process of moving from their hotel back and forth to the other hotels and the conference site. Requirements on arrival will also be recapped. Joe Kiragu, Board Chairperson, Kenya Network Information Centre (KENIC), will add any comments he thinks appropriate. 2) Review of Security Situation and Arrangements Geoff Bickers, ICANN's Director of Security, will review security arrangements for attendees. Geoff will also provide an overview of existing security information that has been published with reminders of online links for further information. Board Chairperson, Kenya Network Information Centre (KENIC), will be invited to make any comments he wishes to add. 3) Remote Participation Options Nick Ashton-Hart will briefly review remote participation arrangements for Nairobi. Q&A: Questions and Answers related to the above subjects will be taken from the audience. Members will be asked to raise their hands in the Adobe Connect room (or ask in Adobe Connect chat to be placed into the queue) wherever possible. Nick Ashton-Hart will call on questioners on a first-come, first-served basis. There is no hard close for the call; the presenters are happy to remain online until all questions have been answered; if for some reason a participant drops or must drop and a question arrives for them, this will be passed along so it can be answered. The agenda and material presented will be identical at each session. Recordings will be posted online for those unable to attend. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Senior Director for Participation and Engagement Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0