October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth 03 Nov '10

03 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

Cross SO AC policy discussion document
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

Dear All, With reference to Chuck Gomes's message below, the Cross SO AC policy discussion document can be viewed directly at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-cross-so-ac-policy-discussion-28oct10-en… and is posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09844.html As I briefly mentioned in our meeting earlier today, a possible topic for discussion with the GAC and ccNSO in our joint meetings with them in Cartagena is the topic of procedures for joint SO/AC working groups or community working groups. As you can see by Liz's email below, I requested that Staff prepare a paper listing some of the issues that might need to be considered in that regard. Please review this and share any comments you have and provide any opinions you have about suggesting this topic to the GAC and ccNSO. If there are any objections to suggesting this as a topic for either joint meeting, please let me know by Wednesday of next week. If there are none, I will suggest the topic to Heather and Chris and send the attached discussion document as well. Thanks to Liz and any other staff members who helped develop the discussion paper. Chuck From: owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:23 PM To: gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups All, On the last chairs call, Chuck suggested that it might be useful to encourage discussion between the GNSO Council and the ccNSO and GAC (and ALAC...) about the benefits and potential issues associated with cross-SO/AC working groups and whether/how their role might be better defined in the future. To stimulate that discussion, we prepared the attached draft at Chuck's request. The questions are just suggestions, we have not yet engaged in any internal consultation, and we do think it will be important to consult with the General Counsel's office to solicit their input and guidance. Please let us know if this is what you had in mind, and if you would like anything further. Thanks, Liz Attachment: Cross SO AC policy discussion.docx http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-cross-so-ac-policy-discussion-28oct10-en… Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN staff
by Adrian Kinderis 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

Chuck, Quick question. Is it the Council's place or business to question the status of staffing at ICANN? I may be reading this wrong but there seems to have been a spike in staff turnover in the last 12 months. I could be wrong and this could simply be a case of normal activity but it causes some concern to me when we have a particularly important 12 months. I am sure we would all like to ensure that ICANN is appropriately staffed, with talented and importantly, DNS experienced people to progress the strategic plan and that the existing staff are supported and managed through this stressful period. As I say, I am not sure it is our place to question or comment. Perhaps we could notify our representatives on the Board that we believe it to be an issue, if indeed we deem it to be one? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

2 1

RE: [council] ICANN staff
by Adrian Kinderis 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

Thanks Rita. “No formal org chart”? Huh? Seems crazy that an organization the size and structure of ICANN doesn’t have one that is “at-the-ready”. I look forward to seeing it on the website soon. I also appreciate your feedback from those discussions. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: Rodin Johnston, Rita [mailto:Rita.Rodin@skadden.com] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:58 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] ICANN staff Hi adrian/all - it is a great question. there has been some concern at the board level as well re staff turnover and available resources for icann's workload. At the bd meeting this past wednesday/thursday, rod addressed these issues, and indicated that we would be presented with an org chart next week at the retreat in palo alto to continue discussions. My understanding is that there is no formal org chart, but that once it is prepared and shown to the board, it will be posted on the icann website. That should provide more information for us all, and a better understanding of vulnerabilities, if any, to be remediated. Thanks. ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org To: Council GNSO Sent: Sat Oct 30 21:14:56 2010 Subject: [council] ICANN staff Chuck, Quick question. Is it the Council’s place or business to question the status of staffing at ICANN? I may be reading this wrong but there seems to have been a spike in staff turnover in the last 12 months. I could be wrong and this could simply be a case of normal activity but it causes some concern to me when we have a particularly important 12 months. I am sure we would all like to ensure that ICANN is appropriately staffed, with talented and importantly, DNS experienced people to progress the strategic plan and that the existing staff are supported and managed through this stressful period. As I say, I am not sure it is our place to question or comment. Perhaps we could notify our representatives on the Board that we believe it to be an issue, if indeed we deem it to be one? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **************************************************** To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. **************************************************** **************************************************** This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof. Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request. **************************************************** ==============================================================================

1 0

ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim meeting - 24/25 September 2010
by Bruce Tonkin 30 Oct '10

30 Oct '10

Hello All, The ICANN staff have published some of the briefing materials provided to the Board for the Trondheim meeting on 24-25 September 2010. See: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 2

ICANN Board resolutions from 28 October 2010 meeting
by Bruce Tonkin 30 Oct '10

30 Oct '10

Hello All, Below are the resolutions from the ICANN Board meeting on Thursday 28 Oct. Key decisions include: - approval of changes to bylaws to support ALAC election of a Board member - approval to use ICANN reserve funds to set up resources for processing new gTLD applications, prior to getting application fees - approval to delegate قطر. ("Qatar") to Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology - approval to re-delegate .qa ("Qatar") to Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology - Board directs staff to adopt as a working plan the new gTLD launch scenario (see attached PDF) with launch date of Q2 2011 - Board decides to enter into a consultation with the GAC over .xxx prior to the Cartagena meeting - Board provides thanks working group for work so far on new gTLD applicant support and encourages further work on the criteria for eligibility Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct10-en.htm Adopted Board Resolutions 28 October 2010 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors 1.Executive Session =================== RESOLVED, (2010.10.28.01) the Board approves the CEO Objectives Matrix. 2.Consent Agenda ================ RESOLVED, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby approved: a. Approval of Minutes of 5 August 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting RESOLVED (2010.10.28.02) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 5 August 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting. b. Approval of Minutes of 25 September 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting RESOLVED (2010.10.28.03) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 25 September 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting. c. From the SSAC – Changes to SSAC Membership: i. Approval of Appointment of Merike Kaeo to the SSAC Whereas, the SSAC does review its membership and make adjustments from time-to-time. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.04) the Board appoints Merike Kaeo to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). ii. Thanks to Departing SSAC Member Dan Simon Whereas, Dan Simon was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 26 June 2009. Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Dan Simon for his service to the community by his membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.05), Dan Simon has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his service to ICANN by his membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and that the Board wishes Dan Simon well in all future endeavours. d. From the Board Governance Committee – Approval of revised Board Audit Committee Charter and Board Executive Committee Charter Whereas, each Committee of the Board of Directors should have a Charter to define the Committee's work and operations. Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has reviewed its Charter approved in 2000 and approved revisions to reflect the scope of the Committee's work, and to align with language common to all charters as approved by the Board Governance Committee. Whereas, the Board Executive Committee approved a Charter incorporating language common to all charters. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee recommended the proposed Charter to the Board Executive Committee, and recommends that the Board approve the Board Audit Committee revised Charter. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.06) the Board approves the revised Board Audit Committee Charter and the Charter for the Board Executive Committee. e. From the Board Governance Committee – Approval of Chair and Vice-Chair Position Descriptions Whereas, the Board Governance Committee spent several months reviewing and revising, and has recommended that the Board approve a formal position description for the Chair and the Vice Chair of ICANN's Board of Directors. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.07) the Board approves the position descriptions for the Chair and the Vice Chair of ICANN's Board of Directors, which are posted at http://www.icann.org/en/board/chair-and-vice-chair-position-descriptions-29… f. From the Board Governance Committee – Approval for Posting of Bylaw Changes relating to transition of Board terms Whereas, the Bylaws require that all incoming members of the ICANN Board of Directors not appointed by the Nominating Committee (NomCom) are seated on the Board six months after the prior year's Annual General Meeting (AGM); Whereas, six months after the prior year's AGM typically occurs in- between ICANN's International Public Meetings, and if the Bylaws are amended to allow for a voting Board member to be selected by the At-Large Community, the transition of the new Seat 15 is anticipated to occur between ICANN's International Public Meetings; Whereas, the Board Review Working Group recommended that the seating of Board members not appointed by NomCom occur at a mid-year International Public Meeting of ICANN to facilitate the transitioning of the Board; Whereas, the Board Governance Committee ("BGC") has considered this issue and recognized that a mid-year meeting may not occur on an annual basis, and recommended modifications to allow for seating of incoming directors without delay; Whereas, the proposed Bylaws amendments reflect the anticipated addition of a voting member selected by the At-Large Community, incorporating amendments already posted for public comment, at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#al-dire… Whereas, the BGC recommends that the Board approve the posting for public comment of the proposed Bylaws amendments. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.08), that the proposed Bylaws amendments be posted for public comment for a period of not less than 30 days. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.09), once the public comment period is concluded and the public comments have been evaluated and summarized, the Board will consider the proposed Bylaws amendments for approval. g. From the Board Structural Improvements Committee – Approval of Bylaws Necessary to Seat Director from At-Large Community Whereas, on 27 August 2009, the Board approved in principle the recommendation of the Board review Working Group (BRWG) to add one voting director from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board. http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-27aug09-en.htm Whereas, the BRWG issued its Final Report containing the recommendation with the expectation that "the selection process will be designed, approved and implemented in time for the new Director to be seated at the 2010 Annual General Meeting." Whereas, on 12 March 2010 the Board directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to present a set of suggested actions to address the recommendations formulated in the BRWG final report. http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1.6 Whereas, on 25 June 2010, the Board approved a recommendation from the SIC and directed the ICANN CEO to post for public comment proposed Bylaws amendments necessary to allow for the seating of a Board Director selected by the At-Large Community and to remove the present ALAC Liaison. http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#1.7 Whereas, the proposed Bylaws amendments were posted for public comment for 45 days, ending on 15 August 2010, and staff prepared a full Summary and Analysis of comments determining that no substantive edits were necessary to the proposed amendments. Staff prepared minor revisions to the Bylaws amendments based upon items arising in public comment and identified in the Summary and Analysis. Whereas, the SIC, at its 14 October 2010 meeting, considered the further proposed amendments and recommended that the Board approve the Bylaws amendments as modified by Staff. Whereas, to address concerns arising in the public comment period, the Board recommends that the At-Large Community consider the possibility that the At-Large Community's selection process to identify a Director to fill the six-month vacancy in Seat 15 at the conclusion of ICANN's Annual General Meeting in 2010 could also be declared to select the Director to serve in the first regular term of Seat 15, as defined within the amended Bylaws, without the re-initiation of a Board seat selection process. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.10), the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as revised by Staff in response to public comment. The Bylaws as amended will allow for the seating of the Board Director selected by the At-Large Community at the conclusion of the ICANN's Annual General Meeting in 2010. h. From the Board Structural Improvements Committee – Approval of Posting for Comment of SSAC Related Changes to ICANN Bylaws Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws governs the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Whereas, in its final report published 29 January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ssac/ssac-review-wg-final-report-29jan10-en… [PDF, 282 KB], the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recommended that task area one of the SSAC Charter (Section 2(2)(a)(1) http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI) should be removed because it is out of scope of the activities of the SSAC. Whereas, on 12 March 2010, the Board received the SSAC final report and directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to identify actions necessary to address the recommendations within the report, at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1.6 Whereas, the SIC, at its 14 October 2010 meeting, recommended that the Bylaws should be amended to achieve the recommendation of the Working Group on improvements to the SSAC by removing task area one and renumbering the other task areas. Whereas, the SIC also considered the SSAC reviewer's recommendation that the Board should have the power to remove SSAC members, and recommended that the Bylaws should be amended to reflect this companion removal power. Any removal should be formed in consultation with the SSAC. RESOLVED (2010.28.10.11), the Board directs that the proposed Bylaws amendment should be posted for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. i. From the Board Structural Improvements Committee – Approval of Posting for Comment of Nominating Committee Chair-Elect Changes to ICANN Bylaws Whereas, Article VII, Section 2 and 3 of the Bylaws govern the composition of the Nominating Committee (NomCom) and the terms of the NomCom members. Whereas, in its final report published 29 January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-final-…, the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group recommended that the Chair of the NomCom be elected one year in advance, requiring changes to the ICANN Bylaws in Article VII, Section 2 and 3 at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VII Whereas, on 12 March 2010, the Board received the NomCom Review final report and directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to identify actions necessary to address the recommendations within the report, at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1.6 Whereas, the SIC, at its 14 October 2010 meeting, recommended that the Bylaws should be amended to achieve the recommendation of the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group by electing the NomCom Chair one year in advance, while also highlighting that the related Bylaws amendments must incorporate appropriate flexibility for the Board. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.12), the Board directs that the proposed Bylaws amendment should be posted for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. j. Approval of Funding Source for New gTLD Deployment Budget Whereas, the Board approved the new gTLD Deployment Budget at its meeting on 25 September 2010 (see Resolution 2010.09.25.01 at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm ). Whereas, the Board Finance Committee (BFC) discussed the amount of the new gTLD Deployment Budget and unanimously agreed to recommend that it not exceed $4.0 million. Whereas, the BFC discussed the new gTLD Deployment Budget and unanimously agreed that it shall be funded now from the reserve fund and not from the adopted operating expense budget. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.13), the funds for the new gTLD Deployment budget shall be available and shall not exceed $4 million. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.14), the new gTLD Deployment Budget shall be funded now from the ICANN reserve fund and not from the annual adopted operating expense budget. Main Agenda =========== =========== 3. Ratification of MOU with Global Cyber Security Center – Discussion moved to Board retreat 4. President & CEO's Report – No resolution 5. IDN ccTLDs (for information) a. Update on IDN ccTLDs – No resolution b. Issues Report on Variant Management – No resolution 6. Delegation of قطر. ("Qatar") ================================ a. Approval of Delegation Whereas, Qatar is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; Whereas, قطر ("Qatar"), encoded as "xn--wgbl6a", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Qatar through the IDN Fast Track process; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of قطر . to the Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities; RESOLVED (2010.10.28.15), the proposed delegation of the قطر . top-level domain to the Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology is approved. 7. Redelegation of .QA (QATAR) top-level ========================================= Whereas, QA is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Qatar; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .QA to the Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities; RESOLVED (2010.10.28.16), the proposed redelegation of the .QA top to the -level domain Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology is approved. 8. New gTLD Program ===================== a. Update on Timeline RESOLVED (2010.10.28.17), the Board directs staff to adopt as a working plan the Launch Scenario with launch date of Q2 2011, as contained in the graphic attached here [PDF, 112 KB]. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/new-gtld-work-plan-28oct10-en.pdf b. Vertical Integration – No resolution c. GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6 Objection Process – No resolution d. GAC Issues Letter including Geographic Names – No resolution e. Affirmation of Commitment Considerations – No resolution 9. ICM Registry Sponsored Top-Level Domains – Next Steps ========================================================= Whereas, the Governmental Advisory Committee communicated to the ICANN Board regarding the application for the .XXX sTLD through: (1) the Wellington Communiqué; (2) a 2 February 2007 Letter from the Chair and Chair-Elect of the GAC to the Chair of the ICANN Board; (3) the Lisbon Communiqué; and (4) a 4 August 2010 Letter from the Chair of the GAC to the Chair of the ICANN Board; Whereas, ICM provided a proposed Registry Agreement to ICANN that was posted for public comment for 30 days; Whereas staff recommends that, though the proposed Registry Agreement provides sufficient measures to address many GAC concerns, entering into the proposed Registry Agreement may not be consistent with some of the broader-reaching communications from the GAC, and the GAC and the Board could benefit from consultation on those items [PDF, 48 KB]. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.18) the Board Chair shall engage the GAC Chair on developing a process for consultation with the GAC on its advice about the ICM application. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.19) the Board Chair will suggest to the GAC Chair that any consultation process conclude prior to the ICANN Public Meeting in Cartagena, Colombia. 10. Status Report on AOC Reviews a. Update on Meeting the Commitments – No resolution b. Review Teams – Update on Logistics & Budget Issues – No resolution 11. Oversight of Board Committees – No resolution 12. New gTLD Applicant Support Whereas, the Board at its March 2010 meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, passed resolutions recognizing the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program, and requesting stakeholders to form a Working Group to develop sustainable support needy applicants for new gTLDs; Whereas ALAC and the GNSO Council, in response to the Nairobi Board resolutions, formed a Joint Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee (SO/AC) Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (the JAS WG); Whereas the JAS WG worked with various stakeholders and presented a report on their findings and recommendations to the Board, and the Board also received a statement on the matter from the African community; Whereas the Board, at its September, 2010 meeting in Trondheim, Norway, made some statements on providing needy applicants with support such as outreach and education, and matching them with sources of support; Whereas the Board, along the lines of its Nairobi meeting resolutions, is still committed to working with the community to ensure an inclusive new gTLD program; RESOLVED (2010.10.28.20), the Board thanks the JAS WG and those members of the community who have devoted their time and energy on finding sustainable ways to support needy applicants for new gTLDs. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.21), the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support. RESOLVED (2010.10.28.22), the Board further stresses that any needy applicant support program must have a sustainable funding model that may be independent of ICANN and can be implemented transparently, and effectively to the benefit of the global Internet community. 13. Any Other Business – No resolution

1 0

ccNSO update - Results Nominations & Elections to ccNSO Council
by Olga Cavalli 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

Hi, The end results of the nominations and elections to the ccNSO Council are as follows: African Region Soleymane Oumtanaga, .ci Asia-Pacific Region Hiro Hotta, .jp European Region Roelof Meijer, .nl Latin American and Caribbean Region Victor Abboud, .ec North American Region Dotty Sparks de Blanc, .vi The Councillors’ term will begin at the end of the ccNSO Council Meeting in San Francisco, USA on 16 March 2011. Best regads Olga

1 0

RE: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim meeting - 24/25 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

I imagine that the risk analysis may have included who may sue ICANN and why based on various outcomes, so I can see why that might be redacted (speculative) but it wasn't likely the entire sum of the analysis, or at least I hope. For example, I would assume the DOJ was consulted based on the SW proposal and their analysis of the VI-WG proposals. Why would the results of that be redacted? Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim > meeting - 24/25 September 2010 > From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Fri, October 29, 2010 10:04 am > To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, > "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Thanks Bruce. What are the criteria by which portions of these materials > are redacted, and who makes the decision whether to redact, and how can it > be appealed? I was appalled to see the 'risk analysis' stricken from the VI > discussion, since obviously that is the most important information/opinion > provided to the Board on that topic (all else was provided by the VI-WG), > and is most deserving of community transparency. > > Best, > Mike > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:19 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim meeting > - 24/25 September 2010 > > > Hello All, > > The ICANN staff have published some of the briefing materials provided > to the Board for the Trondheim meeting on 24-25 September 2010. > > See: > > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups
by Tim Ruiz 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

Thanks Chuck. I think this is an important topic and should be discussed in our meetings with the other ACs and SOs. But I think we as a Council need to discuss to some degree first amongst ourselves and with the GNSO community. If we have a better understanding of how the GNSO sees the pros and cons, it would make for more productive meetings when we discuss cross-AC/SO. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on > cross-SO/AC working groups > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Thu, October 28, 2010 9:25 pm > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > As I briefly mentioned in our > meeting earlier today, a possible topic for discussion with the GAC and ccNSO > in our joint meetings with them in Cartagena is the topic of procedures for > joint SO/AC working groups or community working groups. As you can see by > Liz’s email below, I requested that Staff prepare a paper listing some of > the issues that might need to be considered in that regard. Please review > this and share any comments you have and provide any opinions you have about > suggesting this topic to the GAC and ccNSO. If there are any > objections to suggesting this as a topic for either joint meeting, please let > me know by Wednesday of next week. If there are none, I will suggest the > topic to Heather and Chris and send the attached discussion document as well. > > > > Thanks to Liz and any other > staff members who helped develop the discussion paper. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > From: > owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf > Of Liz Gasster > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:23 PM > To: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working > groups > > > > > > > > All, > > > > On the last chairs call, Chuck suggested that it might be > useful to encourage discussion between the GNSO Council and the ccNSO and GAC > (and ALAC…) about the benefits and potential issues associated with > cross-SO/AC working groups and whether/how their role might be better defined > in the future. To stimulate that discussion, we prepared the attached > draft at Chuck’s request. > > > > The questions are just suggestions, we have not yet engaged > in any internal consultation, and we do think it will be important to > consult with the General Counsel’s office to solicit their input and > guidance. > > > > Please let us know if this is what you had in mind, and if > you would like anything further. > > > > Thanks, Liz > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: Suggestion for Cartagena
by Stéphane Van Gelder 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

Yes, that is an excellent suggestion. I am copying the full Council list for their info. Glen, could you please make sure that incoming Councillors are also invited to our informal, each-person-pays-his-own-way Saturday Cartagena dinner? Thanks so much. Stéphane Le 29 oct. 2010 à 04:27, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : > Jeff, > > We have a Council dinner scheduled for Saturday evening and I am assuming that incoming Councilors would be invited. Thanks for the suggestion. > > Chuck > > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:14 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder > Subject: Suggestion for Cartagena > > Chuck, Stephane and Olga, > > Was just thinking, and this may be a silly idea, but do you think it would be feasible to have some event for incoming Councilors in Cartagena to get to know the other Councilors and to discuss the next years plan? Also, the GNSO wrap up session that is usually held, would that be for incoming councilors as well as outgoing councilors? > > Can be an informal breakfast or something, but it would be nice to get to know all of the others, rather than meeting them for the first time on the phone on the next Council call. > > Let me know what you all think. > 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. >

2 1