October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Staff analysis of WHOIS Proxy and Privacy Abuse Study RFP responses
by Liz Gasster Oct. 11, 2010

Oct. 11, 2010

All, Attached please find staff's analysis of the Proxy and Privacy "Abuse" study based on responses received from independent researchers to the RFP we previously published. We would be glad to answer any questions or provide additional information. The analysis will be posted tomorrow and may be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/. Thanks, Liz

2 2

FW: Correction - Councillor elections - Registries Stakeholder Group
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 11, 2010

Oct. 11, 2010

Forwarded From: David W. Maher CORRECTION Dear Glen: This is notification from the GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group that we have elected the following as our Councillors for two year terms, replacing Chuck Gomes and Edmon Chung, whose terms will expire at the end of the ICANN meeting in December: Jeff Neuman (North America) Ching Chiao (Asia) Please let me know if you have any questions. David David W. Maher Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group Senior Vice President - Law & Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry

1 0

FW: Letter from the Registries Stakeholder Group
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 11, 2010

Oct. 11, 2010

Wearing my RySG Councilor hat, here is a letter that the RySG sent to the Board regarding concerns we have about the Board's action to form its own Data Consumer Protection Working Group as well as its apparent support for unilaterally changing Whois requirements in a top-down manner. Chuck From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@pir.org] Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 2:02 PM To: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org Cc: rod.beckstrom(a)icann.org; Gomes, Chuck; diane.schroeder(a)icann.org Subject: Letter from the Registries Stakeholder Group Dear Peter: Attached to this message is a letter from the Registries Stakeholder Group of the ICANN GNSO regarding resolution 2.10 passed by the ICANN Board on September 25, 2010 with respect to the Board's action items on "Searchable Whois". We would appreciate it if this letter could be made available to the entire Board. Best regards David David W. Maher Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group Senior Vice President - Law & Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry 1775 Wiehle Ave, #200 Reston, VA 20190 USA (v) +1-312-876-8055 (f) +1-312-876-7934 http://www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

2 4

FW: Councillor elections - Registries Stakeholder Group
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 11, 2010

Oct. 11, 2010

Forwarded From: David W. Maher Dear Glen: This is notification from the GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group that we have elected the following as our Councillors for two year terms, replacing Chuck Gomes and Edmon Chung, whose terms have expired: Jeff Neuman (North America) Ching Chiao (Asia) Please let me know if you have any questions. David David W. Maher Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group Senior Vice President - Law & Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

1 0

Notice of New Registry Service posted
by Francisco Arias Oct. 9, 2010

Oct. 9, 2010

ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on a request from Telnic to allow allocation of numeric-only domains. Information on the proposal can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2010012 Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry services proposal to registryservice at icann.org, this is not notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry Services Evaluation Process can be found at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/ Best regards, __ Francisco Arias gTLD Registry Technical Liaison ICANN Office: +1 310.578.8677 Mobile: +1 310.880.6112 Skype: farias555 PGP fingerprint: FE95 C7E7 36C7 A039 94BB C781 FD75 BB9D C55F 51B5

1 0

RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6
by Mary Wong Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

Speaking personally as a participant in the Rec 6 CWG, my puzzlement over the Board's resolution arose in relation to the language where it read "not inconsistent with the existing PROCESS" (emphasis added). Since the CWG was cognizant that its work should be within the framework of existing GNSO POLICY (i.e. Rec. 6 & related Principles etc.) - and I don't believe anything we recommended went outside of this policy framework - I read the Board language to mean, specifically, the objection process relating to MAPO issues as outlined in AGB v4. It seemed to me that the main concern the Board had was what Bruce outlined in his email, viz. the manner in which the Board would ultimately discharge its responsibility for new gTLD decisions. The current AGB process outsources the objection process management and appointment of external experts to the Int'l Center for Expertise (ICE) of the ICC (which some members of the CWG disagreed with). In addition, within the CWG there was fairly extensive discussion over whether the experts appointed should recommend EITHER (1) only that the objection in question is well-founded in international law; or (2) go further and add a recommendation that, as a result of this finding, the string in question should NOT be approved by the Board. The current AGB language on this specific question is not entirely clear, and can be read to indicate that the Board will, without more investigation/discussion, accept the decision of the experts as final. So when the resolution simply reads "not inconsistent with the existing process", I'd guess that many other members of the ICANN community (and not just me) would be concerned as to what the Board considers "process" in the AGB. If "process" simply means "we're going to stick with the ICC as service provider" and/or even "we think the experts should recommend the outcome (and not just the legal implications) of the application", that may be one thing; if, however, "process" was intended to mean also that the Board will accept, without further enquiry (e.g. obtaining a second expert opinion if warranted), the expert's advice, that could be more problematic. In any event, though, and like Chuck, I don't personally believe any of the CWG recommendations were against either existing GNSO policy or AGB-recommended process - I think the recommendations sought to clarify existing ambiguities in the AGB instead. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> To:<cgomes(a)verisign.com> CC:<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/8/2010 12:09 PM Subject: RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 Good point, that could get us all into a lengthy debate. So perhaps at this point we just agree that AGv4 reflects current policy and anything not consistent with that would not be implemented or would be referred to Council for further consideration. I am encouraged by the Board's position on these remaining issues as it appears they are saying we are at the deadline for considering changes for the first round and work going forward will be focused on finalizing the AG and getting resources in place and ready to go. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" > Date: Fri, October 08, 2010 7:56 am > To: , "Bruce Tonkin" > , > , "Council GNSO" > > > Tim, > > What do you mean by 'current policy'? Do you mean the current version > of the guidebook (AGv4)? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com > > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:47 AM > > To: Bruce Tonkin; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > > > > > > Thank you Bruce. I took the Board's instructions regarding rec6 to > mean > > (or to also mean) those recs not inconsistent with the current policy. > > > > Tim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Bruce Tonkin" > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:17:22 > > To: Council GNSO > > Subject: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > Reading the various discussions on the Council list, it appears that > > the > > GNSO believes that the Board dismissed or disagreed with the work from > > the working group on recommendation 6. > > > > The Board resolution stated; > > > > "The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a > > difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these > > recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important > > issue for the past three years. > > > > The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program > > rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the > > determinations of experts regarding these issues. > > > > The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not > > inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before > > the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to > > resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for > > further guidance as required." > > > > > > I interpreted that as saying that the Board broadly agreed with the > > direction of most of the recommendations from the working group. The > > outcomes of which will be seen in the next draft of the guidebook. > e.g > > no longer using the term MAPO. > > > > The only clear disagreement was using the Board of 21 people to > > directly > > try to interpret international law and act as some form of dispute > > panel > > on matters relating to recommendation 6. Most of the Board, including > > me, has no such legal training that would be needed to do that. The > > Board is not the supreme court. Instead we prefer to use a panel of > > experts (e.g judges) that are familiar with international law to reach > > a > > judgement. Ultimately the Board can over-rule that judgement as a > last > > resort (and there are various mechanisms of appeal available for this > - > > such as reconsideration requests, IRP panels etc). > > > > Anyway I would be interested to hear how the GNSO has interpreted the > > Board resolution so that misunderstandings can be cleared up. > > > > In terms of any special papers - from my recollection we only had the > > GNSO paper to read. So you already have the document that we relied > > on. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu

1 0

RE: [council] Kurt Question
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

Seems that the Board should have asked for a release candidate in conjunction with the recent resolutions. Perhaps that is the intent, with the few more or less clean up items that were noted. At least I certainly hope so. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Kurt Question > From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > Date: Fri, October 08, 2010 12:52 am > To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, Council GNSO > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Thanks Bruce. Very firm. I like it. > > However, it is all in how you look at it. > > The staff can certainly put something forward that they may consider "final" and yes the Board may not approve it. However, the staff could still have thought that they were "final". > > My question was to Kurt, and therefore staff, in that, does he believe that the next version will be the one they expect the Board to sign off on or will it be sent back for public comment. > > A legitimate question given staff's history of announcing that they expect future drafts every time they have released one. > > A response would be appreciated. > > Adrian Kinderis > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 3:50 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Kurt Question > > > Hello Adrian, > > > >> Does that mean there will be others and the next won't be "final"? > > It will be final when the Board approves it. Until then it is always a > draft. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

Good point, that could get us all into a lengthy debate. So perhaps at this point we just agree that AGv4 reflects current policy and anything not consistent with that would not be implemented or would be referred to Council for further consideration. I am encouraged by the Board's position on these remaining issues as it appears they are saying we are at the deadline for considering changes for the first round and work going forward will be focused on finalizing the AG and getting resources in place and ready to go. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, October 08, 2010 7:56 am > To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Bruce Tonkin" > <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, > <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Council GNSO" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Tim, > > What do you mean by 'current policy'? Do you mean the current version > of the guidebook (AGv4)? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com > > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:47 AM > > To: Bruce Tonkin; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > > > > > > Thank you Bruce. I took the Board's instructions regarding rec6 to > mean > > (or to also mean) those recs not inconsistent with the current policy. > > > > Tim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:17:22 > > To: Council GNSO<council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Subject: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > Reading the various discussions on the Council list, it appears that > > the > > GNSO believes that the Board dismissed or disagreed with the work from > > the working group on recommendation 6. > > > > The Board resolution stated; > > > > "The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a > > difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these > > recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important > > issue for the past three years. > > > > The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program > > rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the > > determinations of experts regarding these issues. > > > > The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not > > inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before > > the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to > > resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for > > further guidance as required." > > > > > > I interpreted that as saying that the Board broadly agreed with the > > direction of most of the recommendations from the working group. The > > outcomes of which will be seen in the next draft of the guidebook. > e.g > > no longer using the term MAPO. > > > > The only clear disagreement was using the Board of 21 people to > > directly > > try to interpret international law and act as some form of dispute > > panel > > on matters relating to recommendation 6. Most of the Board, including > > me, has no such legal training that would be needed to do that. The > > Board is not the supreme court. Instead we prefer to use a panel of > > experts (e.g judges) that are familiar with international law to reach > > a > > judgement. Ultimately the Board can over-rule that judgement as a > last > > resort (and there are various mechanisms of appeal available for this > - > > such as reconsideration requests, IRP panels etc). > > > > Anyway I would be interested to hear how the GNSO has interpreted the > > Board resolution so that misunderstandings can be cleared up. > > > > In terms of any special papers - from my recollection we only had the > > GNSO paper to read. So you already have the document that we relied > > on. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

The new gTLD issues are related to GNSO specific policy. I do not believe it was appropriate for a CWG to self form to deal with what it chose to call an implementation issue any more than it was for the Board to do the same thing with the IRT. At least with the latter the Board eventually sent it back to where it should have been dealt with in the first place, the GNSO. So I was pleased to see the Board response to the policy changes proposed by the MAPO CWG. If we continue down a path of allowing and even supporting such out of band efforts, then eventually such out of band CWGs will become the norm and used by SGs, ACs, etc. to get their pet issues on the table without going through the accepted processes. Setting policy in that manner is not provided for anywhere in ICANN's bylaws, and I think for good reason. As Allen points out, the GNSO policy development process allows for participation of all in the community in its WGs. The current CWG efforts have not been to deal with some etherial, non-policy related issues. They are being used to attempt to take a short cut around the established GNSO proceses. IMHO, both the ALAC and the GAC are no longer content with having an Advisory role within the community, and perhaps they never were, but that's where we are at. If that is going to change I would like it to be a frank, open, and direct discussion and not as a result of an unintended imprimatur by the GNSO. If we stick solely to what Bill has suggested in regards to this recent ALAC request, that may be fine in this instance, but I am concerned about the tone and implications of the entire message from them and would not want to imply that we agree with any other part of it. And as I said earlier, I think some consideration should be given to whether separate inquiries would be better. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf > yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, > reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 11:49 am > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > > > > I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is > > > "It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly > operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this > would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the > ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better > and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus > built policy processes in ICANN." > > I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this > note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but with > many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the Bylaws give > the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy Development > Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its outcomes are subject > to very special Board treatment. With the current working group model > that still gives others (both affiliated with AC/SOa or not) the ability > to participate. > > But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an > interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working group > are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved by the > GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable. I note > that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think clearly > meant the terms in their most general sense. > > Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent > cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to continue to > use such models when and where it seems to be advantageous. The > alternative to the direction indicated by the sentence is that the GNSO > or the GNSO Council refuse to participate in activities with the other > groups, or that the other groups not be allowed to undertake any > gTLD-related discussions on their own unless "led" by the GNSO. > I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward. > > I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO Council. > It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the price to pay > for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off. > > Alan > > > At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > Well Bill, if that was all it > was about that might be true. But the > second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly > indicates > a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how > we > do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's > decisions > is one thing, extending it beyond that is another. > > Tim > >

7 7

Board review of Papers
by Adrian Kinderis Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

I won't ask this question Chuck but it may pay to get it answered. How much time would the Board like to have papers prior to meetings/ retreats etc in order to ensure they are appropriately considered? It seems to be horribly inefficient to do all the work and not have it considered at the time. Adrian Kinderis

4 4

RE: [council] Board review of Papers
by Rosemary Sinclair Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

Like a Cabinet Minute in Parliament - one page certainly forces clarity in one's thinking!! Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 Email: rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 8 October 2010 4:31 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Board review of Papers Hello Adrian, >> How much time would the Board like to have papers prior to meetings/ retreats etc in order to ensure they are appropriately considered? 7 days if you want the Board to read the document from the GNSO. 14 days if you want the staff to have an opportunity to summarise a long document into a more readable summary. Bear in mind that there is an enormous amount of reading material that hits the Board from the staff and the various advisory committees within 14 days of a Board meeting. I found some of the recent reports from working groups a bit hard to wade through - the first half was preamble etc. Recommend some crisp executive summaries (ie no more than 1 page) that clearly identify the issue, the proposed solution, and the degree of support for that solution. This is the style we have requested from staff - we separate papers into a short summary, and more detailed material contained in an ANNEX. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

written update for Item 7: Suggested Improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

Rather than taking time on the call, I submit these as the compiled recommendations from the GNSO Open meeting discussants. Most important for the open meeting: *Start later (afternoon preferred) *Do motion editing and prep during the weekend session and online as much as possible, so we're not live-editing from the stage *Identify Councillors by including SG/Constit affiliation on nametags *Let others know the purpose of this meeting and whether/where participation is encouraged. *Make coffee/tea available nearby for Councillors so we're not distracted Additional recommendations: Procedural Discussions were too long and ways should be sought to come to a crisper consensus more quickly. Some of the suggestions for improvement were: * better preparation on the mailing list, * ensure that all councillors are familiar with procedural rules, * adhere to stricter time lines during the meeting. * previously the agenda was structured to avoid procedural issues during open meetings, but the challenging work load has made this difficult to continue. * do managerial work during teleconference calls. * use the open Saturday and Sunday sessions as preparatory sessions for the Council meeting so that participants can see how the Council interacts. * motions read during open meetings are time consuming and should rather be displayed on the screen for the audience. * editing should not be done live, apart from exceptional circumstances * suggestion to move working group reports to Open Council session (so Councilors don't hear them twice or skip the meetings with WGs) * What about using the weekend open working session to discuss the motions on the table and possible amendments, then just summarize and vote on the various versions during the public meeting. >>> Low participation level at the Open Council meeting. Possible factors contributing to this are: * early start at 08:00 am. - late night networking is important in ICANN meetings and not conducive to early starts. * should perhaps consider moving the time of the meeting to the afternoon * the size of the room, the agenda topics, and the repetitive nature of the Working Group reports * We need coffee! * Include SG/constituency identification on namecards for audience info Technology * make Adobe Connect work better with all operating systems or alternatives that allow participation from Linux based systems. * Use the Adobe chat room facilities, jabber or instant messaging in a side channel during the meeting to interact with constituency/stakeholder group members * Challenge with Adobe Connect that it does not support redline versions and other live editing tools do not have features like hand raising and chat. - the later start would be beneficial in order to get those that have slept in (or had a big night after the music night) - promoting the agenda somehow (daily newsletters, online etc) prior to the meeting - I think a short handout on ICANN and the role of the GNSO should be available for folks to pick up and read whilst they are in the audience. This will give context to the conversations being held - the public forum should be promoted throughout the event and folks able to comment on each topic in real time. This to me is the biggest benefit of a live meeting. There are no other meetings where folks and participate "in the moment' (which seems to be the flavor of the day). - more detailed explanations as to process and topics by the chair to ensure the audience is aware of the issues and not just sitting back watching the "magic happen". This could be short (very?) power point presentations on each motion and topic to ensure that everyone understands the genesis and purpose of the decision about to be made. - live editing should be avoiding where possible (it is very boring) - use the technology and leave a permanent slide of the structure of the council (with peoples names) on one of the screens. This will help people understand votes and who represents whom

2 1

RE: Confirmation of Appointment of Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza to ATRT ( was Re: Endorsement for AoC A&T RT
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

I will have to get it Brian. Avri might have it more readily available. Chuck From: Brian Cute [mailto:briancute@afilias.info] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:22 PM To: 'Peter Dengate Thrush'; Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Heather Dryden'; 'Avri Doria'; council(a)gnso.icann.org; 'Alice Jansen' Subject: RE: Confirmation of Appointment of Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza to ATRT ( was Re: Endorsement for AoC A&T RT Chuck, Thank you for moving quickly on this nomination and thanks to Heather and Peter as well. Chuck if you have Carlos' email address please forward it to me as I need to contact him concerning our upcoming meetings in Boston next week. Best regards, Brian From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 5:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Heather Dryden; Avri Doria; council(a)gnso.icann.org; Alice Jansen; briancute(a)afilias.info Subject: Confirmation of Appointment of Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza to ATRT ( was Re: Endorsement for AoC A&T RT Dear Chuck - all In the light of the GNSO endorsement, and noting Heather's concurrance as co-selector, we can declare Carlos duly appointed, as of today. I have copied Brian Cute on this further appointment to the Review Team he chairs, and also Alice Jensen, who provides staff support to that Team. Pleas let me know if there is more I ( or ICANN staff) can do to help. regards Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board of Directors, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers +64 4 4998959 (DDI) +64 21499888 (mobile) +64 4 4710672 (fax) On Oct 8, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Peter/Heather, The GNSO Council endorses Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza as a replacement for Willie Currie on the AoC A&T RT. Chuck Gomes GNSO Council Chair

3 2

FW: Vertical Integration Recommendations for the New gTLD Program
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

Please note Peter's thanks below. Chuck From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 5:24 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Secretary; council(a)gnso.icann.org; ICANN Board of Directors Subject: Re: Vertical Integration Recommendations for the New gTLD Program Dear Chick I acknowledge receipt of your message below, which has been shared with the Board. Please convey my thanks to the Working Group, and to the Council for its attention to this request. my regards Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board of Directors, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers +64 4 4998959 (DDI) +64 21499888 (mobile) +64 4 4710672 (fax) On Oct 8, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:to the Mr. Peter Dengate-Thrush Chair - ICANN Board Re: Vertical Integration Recommendations for the New gTLD Program Dear Peter, This is in response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 Adopted Board Resolutions (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm> ) in which the ICANN Board inquired whether the GNSO has achieved a consensus position on the topic of vertical integration with regard to New gTLDs. Please be advised that the GNSO Council was notified by the Vertical Integration PDP Working Group (VI WG) that it was unable to reach a consensus position on the issue of vertical integration. Although the WG has been diligently evaluating this issue for several months, it is unable to deliver recommendations that are supported by a consensus of its members by the ICANN Board's deadline of 8 October 2010. Sincerely, Chuck Gomes Chair GNSO Council

1 0

Endorsement for AoC A&T RT
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

Peter/Heather, The GNSO Council endorses Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza as a replacement for Willie Currie on the AoC A&T RT. Chuck Gomes GNSO Council Chair

2 1

Vertical Integration Recommendations for the New gTLD Program
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

Mr. Peter Dengate-Thrush Chair - ICANN Board Re: Vertical Integration Recommendations for the New gTLD Program Dear Peter, This is in response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 Adopted Board Resolutions (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm) in which the ICANN Board inquired whether the GNSO has achieved a consensus position on the topic of vertical integration with regard to New gTLDs. Please be advised that the GNSO Council was notified by the Vertical Integration PDP Working Group (VI WG) that it was unable to reach a consensus position on the issue of vertical integration. Although the WG has been diligently evaluating this issue for several months, it is unable to deliver recommendations that are supported by a consensus of its members by the ICANN Board's deadline of 8 October 2010. Sincerely, Chuck Gomes Chair GNSO Council

2 1

GNSO Council resolution
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official Council minutes the following motion was passed at the meeting today, 7 October 2010 and the GNSO Council endorsed Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza as a replacement for Willie Currie on the AoC A&T Review Team. Motion to Respond to the ICANN Board on Vertical Integration. Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Adrian Kinderis Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas, in Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 Adopted Board Resolutions (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm)the ICANN Board inquired whether the GNSO has achieved a consensus position on the topic of vertical integration with regard to New gTLDs; Whereas the VI Working Group discussed many different issues, reviewed many different models and produced its Revised Initial Report, the VI Working Group has not yet produced recommendations that are supported by the consensus of its members; Whereas, on 29 September 2010, the GNSO Council Chair received notice from the VI PDP WG stating "to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration"; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to respond to the Board's inquiry; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges that the VI Working Group is unable to achieve a consensus by the Board requested date of 8 October 2010; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the draft response copied below to the ICANN Board and directs Staff to forward the response to the ICANN Secretary. Letter October 7, 2010 To: Mr. Peter Dengate-Thrush Chair - ICANN Board Re: Vertical Integration Recommendations for the New gTLD Program Dear Peter, This is in response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 Adopted Board Resolutions (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm) in which the ICANN Board inquired whether the GNSO has achieved a consensus position on the topic of vertical integration with regard to New gTLDs. Please be advised that the GNSO Council was notified by the Vertical Integration PDP Working Group (VI WG) that it was unable to reach a consensus position on the issue of vertical integration. Although the WG has been diligently evaluating this issue for several months, it is unable to deliver recommendations that are supported by a consensus of its members by the ICANN Board's deadline of 8 October 2010. Sincerely, Chuck Gomes Chair GNSO Council The motion passed unanimously by voice vote 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

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 7 October 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 7 October, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20101007.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

Tim Ruiz DOI/SOI
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

I have updated my SOI below. Glen, please post on the GNSO website. The only change is that for now I no longer participate in the dotMOBI Advisory Group or Policy Advisory Board. For the meeting today, I have no other DOI. Tim Ruiz Updated Statement of Interest 7 October 2010 I am Vice President of Corporate Development and Policy for The Go Daddy Group, Inc. The Go Daddy Group companies include eight ICANN accredited registrars including GoDaddy.com, Inc. GoDaddy.com is a member of the Registrars Constituency of the GNSO and I am its Registered Representative. GoDaddy.com holds a small interest in Afilias Limited for investment purposes. GoDaddy.com and Afilias USA formed a joint venture dba Alliance Registry, in which Afilias USA is the managing member and assumes authority and responsibility for all day-to-day registry operations but it is not currently active. Go Daddy and Afilias also formed a joint venture with MEnet, a Montenegrin company. That joint venture, doMEn doo, was selected by the Government of Montenegro as the Registration Agent for the .me ccTLD. I currently represent Go Daddy on the Board of doMEn. GoDaddy.com is also a member of the United States Council for International Business (USCIB). The USCIB is a member of the Business Constituency of the GNSO. Our primary interest in the USCIB is the DNS and Internet Identifiers Working Group. GoDaddy.com was a founding Member of the Country Code 1 ENUM LLC. I represented GoDaddy.com on the Board of the LLC from Aug 2004 through Dec 2006, at which time GoDaddy.com withdrew from the LLC. In all my positions with the Go Daddy Group, or in the appointments noted above, my focus has been the development and promotion of registrar related business, products, and services. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] RE: Adrian Kinderis - SOI (nee DOI) > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Thu, October 07, 2010 7:07 am > To: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Cc: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, > "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > We've had discussions about this already. > > It's clear that the new procs with regards to DOIs are felt by most to be rather cumbersome. The worry is that the Council approved them, it seems without really realising what they entailed. > > The problem here is volunteer overload. There's so much stuff coming the Council's way that it may be unreasonable to expect Councillors to see it all or to consider it all with the degree of attention it deserves. > > So when we do approve something that, once put into practice turns out to be difficult to work with, perhaps we should have some kind of "quick fix" procedure so that we aren't "lumped" with cumbersome rules for months or even years... > > Stéphane > > Le 7 oct. 2010 à 13:36, William Drake a écrit : > Hi Adrian > On Oct 7, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: > Hells Bells. > > Sorry folks. That is my Declaration of Interest. > > I believe it holds true for the upcoming meeting as most topics are on new gTLD�s. > > P.S. What is the point of all this? How would a DOI differ on a meeting to meeting basis from a SOI? > > > > > 5.1 says an SOI pertains to "the Relevant Party's judgment, any matters to be considered by the GNSO Group" [sic], whereas a DOI pertains to "the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue," which presumably does not fall within the scope of "any matters"�(?) > What is the penalty should I not do a DOI? > > > > > 5.6 Failure to Comply only addresses an SOI, which is to be provided "prior to the start of a GNSO meeting"�(?) > > Probably I'm missing something, but in retrospect the language may have merited more discussion prior to approving the motion� > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 8:40 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Adrian Kinderis - SOI > > > > Adrian Kinderis - Registrar Constituency > > I am Chief Executive Officer of AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd a company based in Melbourne, Australia and an ICANN accredited Registrar and member of the Registrar Constituency. > The AusRegistry Group of companies includes; > > - AusRegistry Pty Ltd which is > · the Registry Services provider for all second level .au domain names > > - AusRegistry International Pty Ltd which is > · a Registry Consultancy Service > · a Registry Software and infrastructure provider for ccTLD�s (including IDN ccTLD�s) > · a Registry Software and infrastructure provider around new gTLD�s (including IDN gTLD�s) > · AusRegistry International currently has no plans to apply for any new gTLD�s as a gTLD applicant (In other words there is no real change to our underlying business model - of providing technology services for Domain Name Registries and Registration) > > I hold the position of Director in all companies above. > > None of the companies within the AusRegistry Group are affiliated with any current gTLD Registry operator with the exception of AusRegistry Pty Ltd of which Afilias has a minority shareholding. > I am not in possession of any gTLD Registry proprietary or sensitive information, nor have I ever been. I am not an officer, director, consultant, or employee of any other member of this Constituency or any other ICANN Constituency. I like to collect butterflies. > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

Yes, 2 for me IF we are requesting more detail in regards to ALL of the decisions and not MAPO specifically. If the intent is the latter, or we are pushed to agree to include anything else, then my preference would be 3, no request at all. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf > yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, > reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Thu, October 07, 2010 6:07 am > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, langdonorr(a)gmail.com, > council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Hi Tim > > Thanks for laying this out. I understand your general concern and doubt anyone here would want out of band CWGs to become the norm. But there may be times when cross-community dialogue is needed to move forward, and many folks thought that was the case with MAPO. We had the GAC belatedly declaring it couldn't live with a GNSO-agreed process and expressing interest in talking it through with us, and they were laterally already having such a discussion with ALAC. It's not obvious that insisting on a GNSO-only response would have played well in that context, or for that matter that it'd have ultimately been as productive as the CWG was (unless you feel the recommendations are worse than the status quo ante?). > > In any event, presumably the choices are 1) a joint request for information that would help us to understand the board's resolution, 2) a GNSO request for the same, or 3) no request. My preference would be for 1, do I understand yours to be 2? Would be good to hear from others� > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > The new gTLD issues are related to GNSO specific policy. I do not > > believe it was appropriate for a CWG to self form to deal with what it > > chose to call an implementation issue any more than it was for the Board > > to do the same thing with the IRT. At least with the latter the Board > > eventually sent it back to where it should have been dealt with in the > > first place, the GNSO. So I was pleased to see the Board response to the > > policy changes proposed by the MAPO CWG. > > > > If we continue down a path of allowing and even supporting such out of > > band efforts, then eventually such out of band CWGs will become the norm > > and used by SGs, ACs, etc. to get their pet issues on the table without > > going through the accepted processes. Setting policy in that manner is > > not provided for anywhere in ICANN's bylaws, and I think for good > > reason. > > > > As Allen points out, the GNSO policy development process allows for > > participation of all in the community in its WGs. The current CWG > > efforts have not been to deal with some etherial, non-policy related > > issues. They are being used to attempt to take a short cut around the > > established GNSO proceses. IMHO, both the ALAC and the GAC are no longer > > content with having an Advisory role within the community, and perhaps > > they never were, but that's where we are at. If that is going to change > > I would like it to be a frank, open, and direct discussion and not as a > > result of an unintended imprimatur by the GNSO. > > > > If we stick solely to what Bill has suggested in regards to this recent > > ALAC request, that may be fine in this instance, but I am concerned > > about the tone and implications of the entire message from them and > > would not want to imply that we agree with any other part of it. And as > > I said earlier, I think some consideration should be given to whether > > separate inquiries would be better. > > > > Tim > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf > > > yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, > > > reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > > > From: Alan Greenberg > > > Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 11:49 am > > > To: > > > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is > > > > > > > > > "It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly > > > operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this > > > would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the > > > ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better > > > and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus > > > built policy processes in ICANN." > > > > > > I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this > > > note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but with > > > many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the Bylaws give > > > the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy Development > > > Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its outcomes are subject > > > to very special Board treatment. With the current working group model > > > that still gives others (both affiliated with AC/SOa or not) the ability > > > to participate. > > > > > > But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an > > > interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working group > > > are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved by the > > > GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable. I note > > > that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think clearly > > > meant the terms in their most general sense. > > > > > > Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent > > > cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to continue to > > > use such models when and where it seems to be advantageous. The > > > alternative to the direction indicated by the sentence is that the GNSO > > > or the GNSO Council refuse to participate in activities with the other > > > groups, or that the other groups not be allowed to undertake any > > > gTLD-related discussions on their own unless "led" by the GNSO. > > > I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward. > > > > > > I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO Council. > > > It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the price to pay > > > for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > Well Bill, if that was all it > > > was about that might be true. But the > > > second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly > > > indicates > > > a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how > > > we > > > do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's > > > decisions > > > is one thing, extending it beyond that is another. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > ***********************************************************

1 0

Adrian Kinderis - SOI
by Adrian Kinderis Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

Adrian Kinderis - Registrar Constituency I am Chief Executive Officer of AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd a company based in Melbourne, Australia and an ICANN accredited Registrar and member of the Registrar Constituency. The AusRegistry Group of companies includes; - AusRegistry Pty Ltd which is * the Registry Services provider for all second level .au domain names - AusRegistry International Pty Ltd which is * a Registry Consultancy Service * a Registry Software and infrastructure provider for ccTLD's (including IDN ccTLD's) * a Registry Software and infrastructure provider around new gTLD's (including IDN gTLD's) * AusRegistry International currently has no plans to apply for any new gTLD's as a gTLD applicant (In other words there is no real change to our underlying business model - of providing technology services for Domain Name Registries and Registration) I hold the position of Director in all companies above. None of the companies within the AusRegistry Group are affiliated with any current gTLD Registry operator with the exception of AusRegistry Pty Ltd of which Afilias has a minority shareholding. I am not in possession of any gTLD Registry proprietary or sensitive information, nor have I ever been. I am not an officer, director, consultant, or employee of any other member of this Constituency or any other ICANN Constituency. I like to collect butterflies. Adrian Kinderis

3 3

RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 6, 2010

Oct. 6, 2010

Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions is one thing, extending it beyond that is another. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf > yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, > reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 3:53 am > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hello, > > The verbiage presents some challenges, but I don't believe the intent or effect of CLO's message is to diminish the GNSO's role. The main point is she's expressing concerns shared by many about the transparency and accountability of the board's deliberations and decision making, and is asking for information that might help clarify the thinking behind the resolutions. This is a generalizable point, irrespective of what one thinks about the JAS and Rec6CWG efforts in particular, cross-community groups in general, etc. Why wouldn't the Council and the SGs it represents want to know more about what materials were considered and how decisions were reached on matters to which people devoted a lot of time and energy in our bottom up democratic process? > > This would seem to merit some discussion tomorrow, no? > > > Best, > > Bill > > On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > What do you think is being replaced Tim? What responsibility do you think would be shirked? > > Chuck > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:12 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > > > > This just further entrenches my concerns that that we have set off an > effort to diminsh the GNSO's role within ICANN policy making (and/or > increase that of the ACs beyond what was envisioned in privatizing this > medium). So I do not support Cheryl's suggestion given that she clearly > includes that as part of the goal for calling this effort together. > > We should be very concerned and cautious about shirking our > responsibility as managers of policy development for the generic name > space by allowing so-called "community working groups" or "cross > community" initiatives to replace GNSO policy processes. > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday > > regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on > > reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" > > Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 8:07 am > > To: "Council GNSO" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC > > Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the GAC. > > Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 7 > > October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl�s message), under agenda �Item > > 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat� I would like to > > request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond. > > In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl�s message: > > > > > > > > �My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the > > knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the > > matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to > > collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a > > joint activity? It is our belief > > that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering > > Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be > > quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the > > ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more > > robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built > > policy processes in ICANN.� > > > > > > > > �. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board > > and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and > > materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants > > and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the > > Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and > > time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community > > (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the > > Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our > > understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be > > requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing > > materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board > > Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for > > these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the > > community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a > > similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting > > information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go > > into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the > > ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.� > > > > > > > > Please forward this request to your respective SGs and > > constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 > > October. > > > > > > > > Thanks, Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; Frank March > > Cc: alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the > > recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various > > WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As discussed > > in our brief chat yesterday, the ALAC at its meeting on the > > 28th discussed several matters and concerns to our > > community and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG > > activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of > > the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim, > > Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) > > leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to > > the aforementioned WG's which as you know range from the > > 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI) through the Joint > > Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross Community WG > > for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC and > > ALAC; the ALAC had formally appointed a Liaison from us as a joint > > CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under > > role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft > > GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of GNSO > > Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc ) and both these Liaisons > > addressed serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the > > Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl > > and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering > > organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's > > reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report from > > the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and > > Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either > > by the ALAC or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that > > might occur (this will be followed though on either jointly with > > other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28 > > Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am writing to you with this information and the > > following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider what next steps > > they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends > > to do. As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint > > JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th > > of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be > > of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS specific > > matter as well as whatever might be raised regarding Rec6CWG. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On behalf of the At-Large Community involved > > and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and > > deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat where they were > > considering the new > > gTLD program Application Guidelines etc., ALAC will > > be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some > > information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG > > participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the > > resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some > > information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations > > from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with > > Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can > > be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those > > resolutions, we will also be requesting access to > > and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff > > briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the > > previously announced intentions and guidelines for these > > publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the > > community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a > > similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting > > information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go > > into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the > > ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is concern in our community that the briefings and > > staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of > > information and the specifics of the various recommendations in > > these reports, nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated > > to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or otherwise > > these fears. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge > > of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters > > we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and > > proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? > > It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly > > operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this > > would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to > > do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build > > better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up > > consensus built policy processes in ICANN. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it > > to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and > > Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have > > an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO > > Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any > > discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note also > > that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value > > any individual or partial/subset interactions and interventions > > from your Members and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to > > join us in cross community collaboration on this... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this > > proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most > > suitable and effective on this issue in the near future. Please note that > > by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC) > > where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback, > > guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership > > and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I believe work more effectively and successfully in > > concert and collaboration rather than by divided effort on this > > and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) > > > > > > > > Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > >

4 3

RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 6, 2010

Oct. 6, 2010

This just further entrenches my concerns that that we have set off an effort to diminsh the GNSO's role within ICANN policy making (and/or increase that of the ACs beyond what was envisioned in privatizing this medium). So I do not support Cheryl's suggestion given that she clearly includes that as part of the goal for calling this effort together. We should be very concerned and cautious about shirking our responsibility as managers of policy development for the generic name space by allowing so-called "community working groups" or "cross community" initiatives to replace GNSO policy processes. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday > regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on > reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 8:07 am > To: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC > Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the GAC. > Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 7 > October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl’s message), under agenda ‘Item > 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat’ I would like to > request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond. > In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl’s message: > > > > “My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the > knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the > matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to > collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a > joint activity? It is our belief > that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering > Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be > quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the > ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more > robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built > policy processes in ICANN.” > > > > “. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board > and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and > materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants > and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the > Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and > time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community > (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the > Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our > understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be > requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing > materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board > Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for > these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the > community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a > similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting > information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go > into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the > ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.” > > > > Please forward this request to your respective SGs and > constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 > October. > > > > Thanks, Chuck > > > > > > > > From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr > [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; Frank March > Cc: alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the > recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various > WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > > > > > > > > As discussed > in our brief chat yesterday, the ALAC at its meeting on the > 28th discussed several matters and concerns to our > community and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG > activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of > the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim, > Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) > leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to > the aforementioned WG's which as you know range from the > 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI) through the Joint > Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross Community WG > for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC and > ALAC; the ALAC had formally appointed a Liaison from us as a joint > CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under > role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft > GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of GNSO > Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc ) and both these Liaisons > addressed serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the > Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl > and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering > organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's > reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report from > the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and > Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either > by the ALAC or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that > might occur (this will be followed though on either jointly with > other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28 > Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en > > > > > > > > > > > > I am writing to you with this information and the > following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider what next steps > they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends > to do. As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint > JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th > of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be > of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS specific > matter as well as whatever might be raised regarding Rec6CWG. > > > > > > > > > > > > On behalf of the At-Large Community involved > and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and > deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat where they were > considering the new > gTLD program Application Guidelines etc., ALAC will > be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some > information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG > participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the > resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some > information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations > from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with > Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can > be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those > resolutions, we will also be requesting access to > and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff > briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the > previously announced intentions and guidelines for these > publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the > community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a > similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting > information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go > into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the > ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is concern in our community that the briefings and > staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of > information and the specifics of the various recommendations in > these reports, nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated > to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or otherwise > these fears. > > > > > > > > > > > > My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge > of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters > we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and > proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? > It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly > operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this > would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to > do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build > better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up > consensus built policy processes in ICANN. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it > to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and > Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have > an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO > Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any > discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note also > that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value > any individual or partial/subset interactions and interventions > from your Members and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to > join us in cross community collaboration on this... > > > > > > > > > > > > I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this > proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most > suitable and effective on this issue in the near future. Please note that > by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC) > where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback, > guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership > and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I believe work more effectively and successfully in > concert and collaboration rather than by divided effort on this > and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) > > > > Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010 > > > > > > > > >

4 3

Updated Pending Projects List
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 5, 2010

Oct. 5, 2010

Dear Councillors, The updated Pending Projects List is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Please review this before the Council meeting on Thursday, 7 October 2010. 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

1 0

Declarations of Interest
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

Please remember to submit any Declarations of Interest regarding any applicable agenda items in advance of the meeting. Here are the main agenda items: * New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat * gTLD Recommendation 6 Community WG * Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) WG * GNSO Project Prioritization Please send any Declarations of Interest regarding any of the above if you have not already declared your interests. Chuck

4 3