October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

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 Oct. 31, 2010

Oct. 31, 2010

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 Oct. 31, 2010

Oct. 31, 2010

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 Oct. 31, 2010

Oct. 31, 2010

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 Oct. 30, 2010

Oct. 30, 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

2 2

ICANN Board resolutions from 28 October 2010 meeting
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 30, 2010

Oct. 30, 2010

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 Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

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 Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

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 Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

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 Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

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

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 28 October, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20101028-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct Happy Listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

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

1 0

GNSO Council Election Procedures for the GNSO Council Chair to be seated in Cartagena
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

Dear All, Please find the GNSO Council Election Procedures for the GNSO Council Chair to be seated in Cartagena in December 2010 as approved at the GNSO Council meeting on 28 October 2010. The voting period has been shortened and now will end on 29 November 2010 and the results will be announced on 30 November 2010. Please forward this to your respective groups right away so that the procedures can be initiated Immediately. These procedures are posted on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/elections/index.html COUNCIL ELECTION PROCEDURES OCTOBER/ NOVEMBER 2010 Approved 28 October 2010 This document contains the GNSO Council Election Procedures for the GNSO Council Chair to be seated in Cartagena in December 2010. References * ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X ) Article X, Section 3, paragraph 7. The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year. Each House (as described in Section 6 of this Article) shall select a Vice-Chair, who will be a Vice-Chair of the whole of the GNSO Council, for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year. The procedures for selecting the Chair and any other officers are contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice- Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held. * GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved on 5 August 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf ) 2.2 Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs - The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice Chairs as follows: a. The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of both houses. b. Each house will be allowed one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house but must be a member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected outside the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair. i. All ballots will include the "none of the above" option. In the event that this option gets 60 percent of both houses, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. The election will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days. ii. In the case of a tie the election will be rescheduled no sooner than 30 days. In the case of a second tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. The election will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days. iii. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. For each candidate, determine the percentage of vote received in each house; add these percentages to determine the score; the leader is the one with the higher score. (Maximum score equals 200.) iv. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of both houses threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leader and "none of the above." v. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of both houses threshold, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. The election will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days. c. Each house shall select a Vice Chair within their respective houses. d. A Chair and Vice Chair may not be elected from the same Stakeholder Group. e. The Chair or Vice Chair shall retain their votes in their respective houses. f. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held. g. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election. Chair Qualifications Summary Nominees must be members of the council at the time the election is held and not necessarily at the time that the nominations are made. This means that: * A current council member who will not be in the new council is not eligible to run for chair. * An incoming council member who is not currently in the council is eligible to run for chair. Only current GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second nominations. Chair Nomination Process Per the GNSO Operating Procedures referenced above (Section 2.2.b): "Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate." To allow for the possibility of a timely Council election process in Cartagena, each house is asked to submit its nominee for Council chair for the term beginning at the end of the 2010 ICANN annual meeting not later than 10, November 2010. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) as soon as possible after they have been selected by their house and not later than 22:00 UTC on 12, November 2010. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of the house selecting the candidate. Should the non voting NCA be elected as chair he/she would be a non-voting chair. The two houses may, separately, select the same candidate from the nominee pool if they so wish. House nominations for Council Chair should be sent to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org. The GNSO Secretariat will send each House's nomination to the Council list as soon as it is received. Voting Procedure The candidates from each of the houses shall have the opportunity of meeting with Council Members during the GNSO Council meeting on 18 November 2010. The first round of voting for Council Chair will be held electronically from 19 November until 29 November 2010. The GNSO Secretariat will announce the results of the first round of voting no later than 30 November 2010. If no election of chair occurs in the first round of voting, the GNSO Operating Procedures quoted above in Section 2.2.b will be followed. Seating of the New Chair Chuck Gomes, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as chair of the Council meeting on 8 December 2010. The newly elected chair of the Council shall assume responsibilities at the end of the 2010 ICANN Annual meeting or as soon as an election occurs thereafter. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 10 December 2010, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as described in the GNSO Operating Procedures. The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election. (Note: The Election of Vice Chairs is house specific and will be defined elsewhere) 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

1 0

Cartagena
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

Glen, Please make a not of Tim Ruiz' suggestion on the chat just now for our Cartagena agenda: "Constituting and chartering CWGs". Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

This message is being forwarded to the Council list per Avri's request and also to Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, and Ray Fassett, GCOT Chair, so that the two of them can hopefully comment on this issue in terms of what their understanding is in this regard. The language approved by the Council seems pretty clear to me but Avri thinks differently. Whatever, it can be changed if the Council supports a change. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:52 PM To: Ken Bour Cc: Mary Wong; Rosemary Sinclair; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck; Robert Hoggarth; Liz Gasster; Ray Fassett; Julie Hedlund; Robin Gross Subject: Re: Voting Remedies due to Absencer (I have remove the GNSO Council from the CC, because I am not authorized to post to the GNSO list. However since Mr. Bour's email was sent to the GNSO list, I request that someone who is so authorized forward this message on as well. ) Dear Mr. Bour, As you know, I neither agree with your interpretation of the rules, nor accept that the rules that were approved capture the proper meaning and sprit of the intent of those creating the rules, but perhaps do reflect the zeal of the author of the rules to create the perfect set of rules by which to control the GNSO and its council members. For example, I know that I spoke at each and every opportunity of the unacceptability of a rule that forced a council member, even when in the role of proxy, to vote in a particular way. And yet, this somehow slipped into the rules. It is fine for a stakeholder group or constituency to make such a decision, but the policy should not as it robs a constituency or stakeholder group of it independent processes. As some understood with the rules pertain to DOI, I feel that there were mistakes introduced into the proxy rules, which I always spoke of as making like much too complicated. I have likened these rules to a Frankenstein's monster on occasion as we need books, charts, forms and full time self-appointed interpreters of the rules to make them even close to intelligible. We not have rules that the council and the stakeholder groups spend more time on that they do on Policy issues. and while there may be some in some quarters who think that is a good thing, I am sure that many don't. I also do not think it is appropriate for a staff member to become a rule enforcer. If the chair of the GNSO believes that I or anyone else in the NCSG/NCUC has misinterpreted or infracted the rules then it is for him to inform us. It is not, in my estimation the task of a contracted staff member to become the rules police. I ask you to remember that it is that Staff that serves the GNSO and not the other way around. Thank you a. On 27 Oct 2010, at 23:47, Ken Bour wrote: > Hi Mary and Rosemary: > > Chuck Gomes has apprised me that there are no motions scheduled for this Thursday's GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement any voting remedies such as proxy. Since the subject of absence and proxy has arisen a few times, perhaps it would be helpful to use this opportunity to clarify the procedures that apply. > > I will briefly outline the steps below; however, may I ask that you also take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention. The procedures map is located at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains sample email contents for each of the various scenarios that can occur (e.g. planned absence, unplanned absence, abstention, vacancy). The procedures map and the related online Abstention Notification Form (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) were both updated recently based on feedback received. A separate announcement will be sent out detailing the changes that were made. > > The GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) do not provide an option for a sitting Councilor to transfer votes via proxy. That authority rests with the applicable SG or Constituency. To utilize the proxy voting remedy for a planned absence requires that: > 1) The Councilor send an email (sample contents are provided in the visual map) to his/her SG/C outlining the reason for the absence and itemizing the motions for which a remedy is sought. [Note: if any of the motions qualifies for absentee balloting, they should be specifically excluded presuming that the absent Councilor would vote on them (electronically) within the 72 hour period normally allowed]. > > 2) An officer of the "Appointing Organization" transmit certain required information (ref. Section 4.5.4-b) to the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the meeting. The information can be provided via the online form as referenced above. > 3) There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in the online form: > a. For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the "Appointing Organization" must have established an affirmative or negative voting position per its Charter provisions; and > b. For each motion, the "Appointing Organization" must affirm that is has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote. > > In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the "Appointing Organization" differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who were elected by the NCUC. For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy would have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); whereas, for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO Operating Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been appointed by the NCSG. > > If there were motions to be voted on this Thursday; then the above steps would have to have been completed before the start of the Council meeting in order for the identified Councilor to register the proxy vote. > > In some situations, it is recognized that it may be difficult for the proxy conditions to be satisfied. In those cases, another option that could be employed is the "Temporary Alternate (TA)" remedy. There is no requirement for a prior voting position or directing a Councilor's vote; however, you should be aware that a TA cannot be a sitting (or term-limited) Councilor. All of the TA conditions are covered in the visual map as well as the GOP (see Section 4.5.3-c). > > If there are any additional questions, I would be pleased to try and answer them. The topic of voting remedies is due to be discussed (Item #5) on the Council agenda this Thursday. Fortunately, Ray Fassett, Chair of the GCOT, will be on hand to provide an overview, philosophy, and rationale for the procedures that have been adopted. Staff will also be available to answer any specific procedural questions that may arise. > > Finally, a short commercial advertisement: Staff has a standing offer available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the voting remedies procedures. > > Regards, > > Ken Bour >

5 5

Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

As I step onto my plane I am involved in many public sector policy processes with government None have the degree of bureaucracy we seem to have embedded in our processes Needs early review! My operational experience managing thousands of people says "Unless it's simple, it won't happen!" Life's too short! Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "William Drake" <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:46:01 To: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes(a)verisign.com>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Philip Sheppard<philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; Ray Fassett<ray(a)goto.jobs>; Avri Doria<avri(a)psg.com>; Ken Bour<ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer Hi On Oct 28, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > > Thanks for forwarding this Chuck. I think Avri's email makes a lot of sense. I agree that the rules should not be so cumbersome as to force the Council to spend more time and effort on admin stuff to the detriment of policy issues. I have stated several times that I found the current DOI rules we are trying to work to overly cumbersome, and also voiced my opposition to the way the proxy rules were interpreted recently as they stopped both an RrSG and an NCSG councillor from voicing their vote. > > I also share the worry that staff should become "rules enforcers". It is up to Council leaders to enforce the rules, working with the Council. > > I do hope we can streamline the rules so that the sound theory and good intentions that went into elaborating them does not stand in the way of the practical sense needed to apply them in our everyday work. I agree with Stéphane and Tim that the proxy rules seem cumbersome and unduly restrictive. As with the DOI, we should have had a more probing discussion at the Council level before voting, but there's no reason why we can't course correct now. >> >> On 27 Oct 2010, at 23:47, Ken Bour wrote: >>> >>> 3) There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in the online form: >>> a. For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the "Appointing Organization" must have established an affirmative or negative voting position per its Charter provisions; and >>> b. For each motion, the "Appointing Organization" must affirm that is has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote. Do I understand correctly that the AO as a whole must have a unified position one way or the other in order for a Councilor's vote to be given to colleague, otherwise it is penalized and loses the vote? Maybe that's ok for any AO's that only allow their Councilors to vote as specifically directed; no agreement, no direction, nothing lost. It would not be ok for AO's that allow their Councilors to exercise judgement and do what they think is right, and hence may not have a singular position. In this case, the absent Councilor who should have been able to give her/his proxy to a colleague and say please vote xyz loses the vote for no reason. On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Ken Bour wrote: > In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the “Appointing Organization” differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who were elected by the NCUC. For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy would have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); whereas, for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO Operating Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been appointed by the NCSG. Ok…So we are not quite NCSG in this context…? The NCUC charter says Councilors may "assign their vote by proxy to the other Constituency GNSO Council Representative for all calls and meetings for which he/she cannot be present, with or without specific voting instructions." And the Interim Charter the board gave NCSG, which presumably is über alles, says only that a Councilor "elected or appointed pursuant to this Charter shall be subject to the rules, principles, responsibilities, and duties as set forth in the Charter of the Constituency that originally nominated him/her for election to the Council," which for us elected types would be NCUC. So then we three can individually assign our proxies to each other and exercise proxy votes irrespective of whether our AO has established an affirmative or negative voting position? Or do the OPs trump both the NCUC and the NCSG charters? I should never try to grok the OPs after a long day…. Bill

2 1

FW: Council meeting
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

Please note that Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, will not be able to participate in our Council meeting today as previously plan. In lieu of his attendance, he asked me to forward the following message. It was anticipated that Philip would participate in two agenda items: "Item 5: Voting Procedures when Councilors are absent &/or must abstain" and "Item 6: Disclosure of Interest Procedures". Chuck -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:09 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Ray Fassett Subject: RE: Council meeting Chuck, Please forward this to Council. Chances are I will not join the call tonight for various reasons. Ray will anyway be in a better position to explain how his group reached the rules they did and what eventualities they tried to foresee. Let me share some more high level thoughts. 1. OSC role I regard the OSC as a check on the work of the sub groups more about process than content. It is also a chance to have a second set of eyes review a proposal. But there is nothing like actually using a set of rules to expose their strengths and weaknesses. 2. Objective of the GNSO rules of procedure The rules meet essentially one of two requirements. a) Improve the efficiency of Council. b) Improve the integrity of Council. 3. Good rule or bad rule? The rule must be proportionate to its objective. If to apply it is disproportionately onerous it should be changed. ------------------------------- Conclusions 1. Having re read the rule on proxies and abstentions and read the Council list they look to me to be disproportionate. The graphic heroically produced by staff underlines their complexity. The current rules may not be adding to the efficiency of Council. If true change them. 2. The rules on declarations of interest need special consideration. These rules are there for the second integrity objective. Council is by its nature a nest of vested interests. Transparency via declarations of interest is the solution. Here I would apply a harder test of proportionately. Council should be expected to make extra efforts in pursuit of being a body with integrity. On re reading the amended rules, I believe they are simpler and my instinct would be to try them out for a few months before seeking any change. (By way of record keeping there should be one web page logging current SOIs and specific DOIs per Council member). Hope this helps. Philip OSC Chair

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

I would support a change. I do feel that there needs to be a clear process for appointing a proxy but it could be less complicated and more flexible. I would also like to point out that the RrSG (and previous constituency) has never required that its Councilors vote a specific way. I appreciate the work and thought that has gone into the current process, but now that we have some experience with it I think it's clear some changes are needed. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 5:56 pm > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, "Ray Fassett" > <ray(a)goto.jobs>, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com> > > This message is being forwarded to the Council list per Avri's request and also to Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, and Ray Fassett, GCOT Chair, so that the two of them can hopefully comment on this issue in terms of what their understanding is in this regard. > > The language approved by the Council seems pretty clear to me but Avri thinks differently. Whatever, it can be changed if the Council supports a change. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:52 PM > To: Ken Bour > Cc: Mary Wong; Rosemary Sinclair; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck; Robert Hoggarth; Liz Gasster; Ray Fassett; Julie Hedlund; Robin Gross > Subject: Re: Voting Remedies due to Absencer > > (I have remove the GNSO Council from the CC, because I am not authorized to post to the GNSO list. However since Mr. Bour's email was sent to the GNSO list, I request that someone who is so authorized forward this message on as well. ) > > Dear Mr. Bour, > > As you know, I neither agree with your interpretation of the rules, nor accept that the rules that were approved capture the proper meaning and sprit of the intent of those creating the rules, but perhaps do reflect the zeal of the author of the rules to create the perfect set of rules by which to control the GNSO and its council members. For example, I know that I spoke at each and every opportunity of the unacceptability of a rule that forced a council member, even when in the role of proxy, to vote in a particular way. And yet, this somehow slipped into the rules. It is fine for a stakeholder group or constituency to make such a decision, but the policy should not as it robs a constituency or stakeholder group of it independent processes. > > As some understood with the rules pertain to DOI, I feel that there were mistakes introduced into the proxy rules, which I always spoke of as making like much too complicated. I have likened these rules to a Frankenstein's monster on occasion as we need books, charts, forms and full time self-appointed interpreters of the rules to make them even close to intelligible. We not have rules that the council and the stakeholder groups spend more time on that they do on Policy issues. and while there may be some in some quarters who think that is a good thing, I am sure that many don't. > > I also do not think it is appropriate for a staff member to become a rule enforcer. If the chair of the GNSO believes that I or anyone else in the NCSG/NCUC has misinterpreted or infracted the rules then it is for him to inform us. It is not, in my estimation the task of a contracted staff member to become the rules police. I ask you to remember that it is that Staff that serves the GNSO and not the other way around. > > Thank you > > a. > > > > > > > On 27 Oct 2010, at 23:47, Ken Bour wrote: > > > Hi Mary and Rosemary: > > > > Chuck Gomes has apprised me that there are no motions scheduled for this Thursday's GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement any voting remedies such as proxy. Since the subject of absence and proxy has arisen a few times, perhaps it would be helpful to use this opportunity to clarify the procedures that apply. > > > > I will briefly outline the steps below; however, may I ask that you also take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention. The procedures map is located at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains sample email contents for each of the various scenarios that can occur (e.g. planned absence, unplanned absence, abstention, vacancy). The procedures map and the related online Abstention Notification Form (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) were both updated recently based on feedback received. A separate announcement will be sent out detailing the changes that were made. > > > > The GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) do not provide an option for a sitting Councilor to transfer votes via proxy. That authority rests with the applicable SG or Constituency. To utilize the proxy voting remedy for a planned absence requires that: > > 1) The Councilor send an email (sample contents are provided in the visual map) to his/her SG/C outlining the reason for the absence and itemizing the motions for which a remedy is sought. [Note: if any of the motions qualifies for absentee balloting, they should be specifically excluded presuming that the absent Councilor would vote on them (electronically) within the 72 hour period normally allowed]. > > > > 2) An officer of the "Appointing Organization" transmit certain required information (ref. Section 4.5.4-b) to the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the meeting. The information can be provided via the online form as referenced above. > > 3) There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in the online form: > > a. For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the "Appointing Organization" must have established an affirmative or negative voting position per its Charter provisions; and > > b. For each motion, the "Appointing Organization" must affirm that is has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote. > > > > In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the "Appointing Organization" differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who were elected by the NCUC. For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy would have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); whereas, for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO Operating Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been appointed by the NCSG. > > > > If there were motions to be voted on this Thursday; then the above steps would have to have been completed before the start of the Council meeting in order for the identified Councilor to register the proxy vote. > > > > In some situations, it is recognized that it may be difficult for the proxy conditions to be satisfied. In those cases, another option that could be employed is the "Temporary Alternate (TA)" remedy. There is no requirement for a prior voting position or directing a Councilor's vote; however, you should be aware that a TA cannot be a sitting (or term-limited) Councilor. All of the TA conditions are covered in the visual map as well as the GOP (see Section 4.5.3-c). > > > > If there are any additional questions, I would be pleased to try and answer them. The topic of voting remedies is due to be discussed (Item #5) on the Council agenda this Thursday. Fortunately, Ray Fassett, Chair of the GCOT, will be on hand to provide an overview, philosophy, and rationale for the procedures that have been adopted. Staff will also be available to answer any specific procedural questions that may arise. > > > > Finally, a short commercial advertisement: Staff has a standing offer available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the voting remedies procedures. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ken Bour > >

1 0

Re: [council] RE: Absence from Council
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

Hi Ken I have looked at the process map - it's complexity led me to a simple "fail-safe" procedure; Advise absence to Secretariat and SG which then indicates the proxy. At the moment my admin focus is on finalisation of the NCSG Charter My policy focus is on 'operationalising' ICANN's commitment to consumers thru structure, strategy and decision processes If there's time in Colombia - let's catch up Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:31:06 To: 'Rosemary Sinclair'<Rosemary.Sinclair(a)atug.org.au> Cc: 'Glen de Saint GÃ©ry'<Glen(a)icann.org>; Robert Hoggarth<robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>; <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>; Council GNSO<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Absence from Council Rosemary: I have been apprised that there are no motions scheduled for this Thursday’s GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement any voting remedies such as proxy. Rather than attempt to write out the procedures, may I ask that you take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention. The procedures map is located at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains sample language for the various emails that might be created under different scenarios. Staff has a standing offer available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the voting remedies procedures. Thank you, Ken Bour From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 11:17 AM To: Rosemary Sinclair; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Absence from Council Hi Rosemary, Thank you for your notification. Please find the link to the Absentee Advice and Proxy Procedures below: http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: Rosemary Sinclair Hi Glen I have to go to NZ on Friday – so will be on plane while Council meeting is on Would you remind me of the Absentee Advice and Proxy Procedures please? Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG

1 0

UPDATED: Voting Remedies Procedural Map & Abstention Notification Form
by Ken Bour Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

To: GNSO Councilors Stakeholder Group and Constituency Leaders The topic of Voting Remedies (i.e. abstentions, absences, and vacancies) is currently Item #5 on the GNSO Council agenda scheduled for 28 October 2010 and Ray Fassett, GCOT Chair, has been invited to participate. In preparation for this discussion, I wanted to inform you that we have made several improvements (outlined below) to both the Voting Remedies Visual Map and the online Abstention Notification Form based upon feedback received. Visual Map (http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm) 1) Changed title to Voting Remedies: Abstentions, Absences, and Vacancies 2) Removed a redundant step in the Planned Absence structure (per Chucks suggestion). 3) Added larger Email Icons to indicate where sample message contents are provided and located them to the right side of each block for consistency with the Note icons. 4) All of the pop-up text is now available to be copied/pasted to simplify creating an Email message using the sample message contents. 5) Repositioned sections to enable the addition of flow arrows to make it easier to follow the procedure. Abstention Notification Form (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) 1) Changed several field labels to include the word Officer to make clear who completes this form. 2) Reordered the fields based upon feedback (e.g. moved Officer Email Address to top section). 3) Added conditional logic to the form so that, once a particular voting remedy is selected, only the appropriate fields appear. The above changes are intended to make the procedures map and the online form easier to understand, follow, and execute. I thank those who provided constructive feedback in helping to make these tools more useful to the GNSO community. I also thank our responsive ICANN Web-Admin team for their flexibility and creativity in implementing the above design enhancements. For those SGs and Constituencies that have yet to take advantage of the offer, Staff remains available to provide a tutorial on the new Voting Remedies including the procedures map and online form. Ken Bour

1 0

Voting Remedies due to Absencer
by Ken Bour Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

Hi Mary and Rosemary: Chuck Gomes has apprised me that there are no motions scheduled for this Thursdays GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement any voting remedies such as proxy. Since the subject of absence and proxy has arisen a few times, perhaps it would be helpful to use this opportunity to clarify the procedures that apply. I will briefly outline the steps below; however, may I ask that you also take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention. The procedures map is located at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains sample email contents for each of the various scenarios that can occur (e.g. planned absence, unplanned absence, abstention, vacancy). The procedures map and the related online Abstention Notification Form (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) were both updated recently based on feedback received. A separate announcement will be sent out detailing the changes that were made. The GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) do not provide an option for a sitting Councilor to transfer votes via proxy. That authority rests with the applicable SG or Constituency. To utilize the proxy voting remedy for a planned absence requires that: 1) The Councilor send an email (sample contents are provided in the visual map) to his/her SG/C outlining the reason for the absence and itemizing the motions for which a remedy is sought. [Note: if any of the motions qualifies for absentee balloting, they should be specifically excluded presuming that the absent Councilor would vote on them (electronically) within the 72 hour period normally allowed]. 2) An officer of the Appointing Organization transmit certain required information (ref. Section 4.5.4-b) to the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the meeting. The information can be provided via the online form as referenced above. 3) There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in the online form: a. For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the Appointing Organization must have established an affirmative or negative voting position per its Charter provisions; and b. For each motion, the Appointing Organization must affirm that is has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote. In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the Appointing Organization differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who were elected by the NCUC. For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy would have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); whereas, for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO Operating Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been appointed by the NCSG. If there were motions to be voted on this Thursday; then the above steps would have to have been completed before the start of the Council meeting in order for the identified Councilor to register the proxy vote. In some situations, it is recognized that it may be difficult for the proxy conditions to be satisfied. In those cases, another option that could be employed is the Temporary Alternate (TA) remedy. There is no requirement for a prior voting position or directing a Councilors vote; however, you should be aware that a TA cannot be a sitting (or term-limited) Councilor. All of the TA conditions are covered in the visual map as well as the GOP (see Section 4.5.3-c). If there are any additional questions, I would be pleased to try and answer them. The topic of voting remedies is due to be discussed (Item #5) on the Council agenda this Thursday. Fortunately, Ray Fassett, Chair of the GCOT, will be on hand to provide an overview, philosophy, and rationale for the procedures that have been adopted. Staff will also be available to answer any specific procedural questions that may arise. Finally, a short commercial advertisement: Staff has a standing offer available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the voting remedies procedures. Regards, Ken Bour

1 0

RE: Absence from Council
by Ken Bour Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

Rosemary: I have been apprised that there are no motions scheduled for this Thursdays GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement any voting remedies such as proxy. Rather than attempt to write out the procedures, may I ask that you take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention. The procedures map is located at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains sample language for the various emails that might be created under different scenarios. Staff has a standing offer available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the voting remedies procedures. Thank you, Ken Bour From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 11:17 AM To: Rosemary Sinclair; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Absence from Council Hi Rosemary, Thank you for your notification. Please find the link to the Absentee Advice and Proxy Procedures below: http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: Rosemary Sinclair Hi Glen I have to go to NZ on Friday so will be on plane while Council meeting is on Would you remind me of the Absentee Advice and Proxy Procedures please? Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG

1 0

Audited Financial Statements Posted
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27oct10-en.htm Audited Financial Statements Posted 27 October 2010 ICANN's FY10 Audited Financials are now posted (http://www.icann.org/en/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun10-en.pdf [PDF, 221 KB]). In accordance with Article XVI of ICANN's by-laws, the statements are posted by the end of October and are available for review by the community. For the 11th straight year, ICANN has received an unqualified "clean" opinion from ICANN's independent auditors, Moss Adams LLP, the 11th largest accounting firm in the United States. The Community is invited to review ICANN's audited financials and to provide commentaries and/or questions. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Absence from Council
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

Hi Rosemary, Thank you for your notification. Please find the link to the Absentee Advice and Proxy Procedures below: http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: Rosemary Sinclair Hi Glen I have to go to NZ on Friday - so will be on plane while Council meeting is on Would you remind me of the Absentee Advice and Proxy Procedures please? Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG

1 0

FW: Rosemary Sinclair absence from council meeting.
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

-----Original Message----- Forwarded From: Avri Doria As per the proxy requirements for absence: Rosemary Sinclair will be absent from the upcoming council meeting. For any votes that may occur, the NCSG has assigned her proxy to William Drake. Thank you. Avri Doria Chair, NCSG Executive Committee Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0