January 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft Nairobi Agenda
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 27, 2010

Jan. 27, 2010

Hello everyone, Item 6 on the agenda for our Jan 28 meeting is on Nairobi and the planning for that meeting (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-28jan10-en.htm) On Item 6.2. we will discuss the draft agenda. Therefore please find attached the draft agenda as it stands so far. Apologies for my lateness in sending this document and being outside the required minimum delay for submitting documents to the Council before a meeting, but as you all know the meeting was only confirmed last Friday and that has caused this work to be delayed. Allow me to draw your attention to the Sunday morning breakfast slot. We have discussed this in our previous meeting but I have not seen confirmation that we are going ahead with this (the Sat dinner is confirmed and a venue is being booked by Glen as we speak). It would be great to be able to confirm this on Thursday, as there are specific constraints in Nairobi and we need to work asap on the actual organisation of this breakfast meeting if it is to happen. With regards to the rest of the agenda, please review and let either Glen or myself know if there are items to be added/modified/removed. We have sent calls to all WG and DT chairs and most have responded with their Council time requirements in Nairobi. It would be good if those that haven't responded do so asap. Thanks, Stéphane

3 4

Nairobi: logistical and security arrangements
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 26, 2010

Jan. 26, 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. Agenda details will be forthcoming shortly, but we wanted to ensure we got the word out so you could 'save the date'. 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) The agenda and material presented will be identical at each session. Freephone access dial-in numbers are available for many countries worldwide, with dial-outs upon request where needed. Information on how to attend will be provided along with the agenda in the next few days. -- -- 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 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Two community teleconferences on Nairobi security and logistics this week
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

Forwarded on Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Dear Colleagues: In order to help ensure the community is able to make choices about attendance at the Nairobi meeting based upon complete and standardised information, two teleconferences will be held later this week. Please ensure that the following message is communicated to community mailing lists. A detailed agenda will be provided in due course as a follow-up message. In case you are wondering, staff are welcome to attend these conferences, but please keep in mind that Q&A time should be reserved for the community unless there is plenty of Q&A time and the presenters specifically ask if there are any questions from members of staff. --- 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. Agenda details will be forthcoming shortly, but we wanted to ensure we got the word out so you could 'save the date'. 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) The agenda and material presented will be identical at each session. Freephone access dial-in numbers are available for many countries worldwide, with dial-outs upon request where needed. Information on how to attend will be provided along with the agenda in the next few days. -- -- 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

Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting - 22 Jan 2010
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-22jan10-en.htm Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting 22 January 2010 [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 22 January 2010 @ 19.00 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), Dennis Jennings (Vice Chairman), Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Raimundo Beca, Steve Crocker, Gonzalo Navarro, Rita Rodin Johnston, Raymond A. Plzak, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Bruce Tonkin, and Katim Touray. Jean-Jacques Subrenat was unable to attend. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Jonne Soininen, TLG Liaison; Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison. This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 22 January 2010. Agenda 1.Venue for the March ICANN International meeting The President and CEO made a presentation on the Board on the assessment of security in Nairobi following recent events in the area. Commitment to Nairobi for ICANN's 37th International Meeting: Whereas, the ICANN Board approved holding its 2010 Africa meeting in Nairobi during its May 2009 Board Meeting (see resolution 2009-05-21-09) Whereas, ICANN has received questions [from individuals, companies and an ICANN constituency group] regarding security and has conducted internal reviews and external reviews of the current security conditions following on from recent events in Nairobi, Resolved (2010.01.22.01), the ICANN Board confirms its commitment to hold the ICANN 37th International Meeting in Nairobi, Kenya in March of 2010. All voting members in attendance supported the resolution. The motion carried. The Board then took the following action: Resolved (2010.01.22.02), the ICANN Board authorizes the CEO and President to work with the Kenyan hosts and authorities and others for the provision of additional security. All voting members in attendance supported the resolution. The motion carried. The Chair thanked the Board for the prompt attention to this issue and staff for the work done. The Chair noted that in light of the Board's commitment to proceed to Nairobi, the staff should focus work on making the meeting as successful as possible. Adjourned 20.31 UTC

1 0

ICANN remains committed to Nairobi
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

From: http://blog.icann.org/2010/01/icann-remains-committed-to-nairobi-and-afr ica/ ICANN Remains Committed to Nairobi and Africa by Rod Beckstrom on January 22, 2010 We have listened to the community. Many are looking forward to Nairobi, some expressed concerns, particularly in light of the events in downtown Nairobi on January 15. Accordingly, ICANN staff and board have reexamined the security situation During our re-examination we first explored moving the event out of the downtown Nairobi area to a suburb, but determined that no suitable venue was available. Second, we reached out to the Kenyan government as well as other nations with operations in Kenya for their risk assessments of the situation. The consistent feedback was that the overall risk assessment of Nairobi had not changed. Accordingly, based on the ICANN CEO's recommendation, the ICANN Board has approved moving ahead with the ICANN Nairobi meeting. At the same time, we recognize that many developing country cities have higher ambient levels of street crime and much of the world (the U.S. And Europe included) faces international terrorist threats and attacks. Both are simply facts of life. Also, as with all ICANN events, we will continue to monitor the security situation in case there are any material future changes. For any ICANN community members who do not travel to the event, remote participation will be available for many of the meetings. Given that ICANN is committed to "One world. One Internet. Everyone connected." we have engaged and will continue to engage with the whole world. We greatly appreciate the assistance of Kenya, the host country, and their commitment to address ICANN security concerns. In addition, the ICANN board has approved further security investments by the CEO as necessary for the event, and the CEO will become personally involved in reviewing the security plans. I love Kenya. I have been to Nairobi six times and greatly look forward to participating in this important ICANN International meeting. Rod Beckstrom CEO and President ICANN 22 January 2010

1 0

Re: [council] Motions re. Vertical Integration PDP
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

Thanks Adrian. Maybe I interpreted too precisely. Regardless, it still seems that we only need to act on Mike' s motion. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Jan 22 16:51:51 2010 Subject: Re: [council] Motions re. Vertical Integration PDP Just to be clear chuck, stephane's motion is indeed to initiate a PDP. Just not right now.... It was a motion only to defer not eliminate. Sent from my iPhone On 23/01/2010, at 5:16, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: Note that there are two competing motions regarding whether or not a PDP should be initiated regarding vertical integration of registries and registrars for new gTLDs, one made by Stephane and seconded by Adrian and one made by Mike and seconded by Debbie (see <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions) After careful analysis and some consultation with others, I have come to the conclusion that the only motion we need to consider is Mike's motion to initiate a PDP. My rationale is as follows: * If we dealt with Stephane's motion to not initiate a PDP first, even if it passed, we would still have to act on the other motion and I think it is theoretically possible that both motions could pass. * Whether Mike's motion passes or not, there would be no need to vote on Stephane's motion, thereby making Stephane's motion unnecessary; a failure of Mike's motion would have the same effect as passing Stephane's motion and passage of Mike's motion would override passage of Stephane's motion because we have specifically defined voting thresholds for initiating a PDP, which I do not believe we could ignore. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning, please speak up. Stephane, if my logic is valid, you may want to consider withdrawing your motion, but I will leave that to you and Adrian, who seconded it. Whatever we decide, Stephane's motion would require a majority of each house and Mike's would require either 33% of each house or 66% of one house. Chuck

1 0

Motions re. Vertical Integration PDP
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

Note that there are two competing motions regarding whether or not a PDP should be initiated regarding vertical integration of registries and registrars for new gTLDs, one made by Stephane and seconded by Adrian and one made by Mike and seconded by Debbie (see https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions) After careful analysis and some consultation with others, I have come to the conclusion that the only motion we need to consider is Mike's motion to initiate a PDP. My rationale is as follows: * If we dealt with Stephane's motion to not initiate a PDP first, even if it passed, we would still have to act on the other motion and I think it is theoretically possible that both motions could pass. * Whether Mike's motion passes or not, there would be no need to vote on Stephane's motion, thereby making Stephane's motion unnecessary; a failure of Mike's motion would have the same effect as passing Stephane's motion and passage of Mike's motion would override passage of Stephane's motion because we have specifically defined voting thresholds for initiating a PDP, which I do not believe we could ignore. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning, please speak up. Stephane, if my logic is valid, you may want to consider withdrawing your motion, but I will leave that to you and Adrian, who seconded it. Whatever we decide, Stephane's motion would require a majority of each house and Mike's would require either 33% of each house or 66% of one house. Chuck

2 1

Notice of New Public Comment Forum For Revised GNSO Consumers Constituency Proposal
by Robert Hoggarth Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members; Pursuant to Article X, Section 5 of the ICANN Bylaws, this is to advise you that at the direction of the Board's Structural Improvements Committee a Public Comment Forum is being set up to receive community comments on the revised/updated proposal for a new GNSO Consumers Constituency. The revisions were submitted to the Board prior to the Seoul meeting. The Comment forum is likely to be posted later today and will be open for comments through 13 February. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN

1 0

Discussion Draft: Affirmation Reviews - Extension of Public Comment Period
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

Discussion Draft: Affirmation Reviews - Extension of Public Comment Period 21 January 2010 As requested by Members of the Community, the public consultation<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev> on the discussion draft paper<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-propo…> addressing the Affirmation review requirements has been extended from the end of January to the 10th February 2010. In consideration of the very tight timeline of the Affirmation review processes and of the need to provide Selectors with a consolidation of comments before the establishment of the first Review Team, it would be impossible to grant further extensions of this public comment period.

1 0

FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

At my request, Margie developed two different draft motions regarding the issue of whether or not the Council should initiate a PDP on vertical integration of registries and registrars; please see the drafts below. If anyone is interested in making one of these motions or a variation of one of them, I encourage you to do so. A third alternative motion would be one to delay our decision on this until a later Council meeting. The Council Operating Procedures deadline for motions for our 28 Jan meeting is tomorrow, 20 January. Whether any motion is made or not by tomorrow, I will ask Glen to post them tomorrow to satisfy the posting deadline. Chuck ________________________________ From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:24 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Liz Gasster; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration Hi Chuck, As requested, I drafted two motions, described below, related to the VI Issues Report for your review and consideration. Best, Margie MOTION TO DEFER: 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 delay the initiation of a PDP for a period of 1 - 2 years; Now therefore, be it: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council has reviewed the recommendations contained in the Issues Report, and, after consideration of the implementation timeline associated with the New gTLD Program, declines to initiate a PDP at this time; FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that any Stakeholder Group or Constituency affected by this issue actively participate in the implementation activities conducted by ICANN for the New gTLD Program; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall reevaluate whether to initiate a PDP on the topic of vertical integration two years after the launch of the initial round of New gTLD applications. MOTION TO COMMENCE A PDP: 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 PDP for a period of 1-2 years; Whereas, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Issue Report, the GNSO Council has decided to initiate a PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars; 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, recognizing that this PDP may not conclude its work in time to affect the initial round of New gTLD applications, the GNSO Council recommends that any Stakeholder Group or Constituency affected by this issue actively participate in the implementation activities conducted by ICANN for the New gTLD program; FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council shall convene a drafting team to propose a draft charter for a working group to be created to fulfill the requirements of the PDP, which draft charter to be delivered approximately thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution.

5 5