October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Bio From Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

Here is Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza's bio for the AoC A&T RT. Chuck _____________________________________________ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:08 PM To: Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; Peter Dengate Thrush Cc: Gomes, Chuck Subject: Bio From Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza <<Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza - short bio.pdf>>

1 0

ccNSO member 108
by Olga Cavalli Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

Hi, Cape Verde is now the 108 th member of the ccNSO. Best regards Olga

1 0

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 Gomes, Chuck Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

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 <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 <http://goog_673367091/> GNSO Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc <https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fst.icann.org%2Fdata%2F workspaces%2Ficann-ppsc%2Fattachments%2Fworking_group_team%3A20100520152 255-0-26262%2Foriginal%2FGNSO%252520Working%252520Group%252520Guidelines %252520-%252520clean%252520-%252520updated%25252020%252520May%2525202010 .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

2 1

Review Teams for SSR (Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS) and for WHOIS (WhoIs Policy)
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep10-en.htm ________________________________ Review Teams for SSR (Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS) and for WHOIS (WhoIs Policy) Preliminary selection - Subject to Review of Statements of Interests 30 September 2010 After careful review of the candidates' documents, the mandated Selectors for the Affirmation of Commitments - Heather Dryden, Interim Chair of the ICANN Government Advisory Committee and Rod Beckstrom, ICANN President and CEO - have reached a decision on the composition of the above Review Teams (RT), as presented in the tables below. The selectors have based their selections on the SO/AC endorsements. In a couple of cases, the number of endorsed candidates exceeded the number of available seats. This resulted in a difficult choice between qualified candidates. Geographic diversity of the teams was one important factor used by the selectors in those situations. This factor also prompted a switch of candidates from one AC, in agreement with this entity. The selections are at this stage preliminary and subject to final review of the candidates' Statements of Interest. The Selectors would like to thank all candidates for their interest in the ICANN review process; the skills, professional experience and true interest in the review were highly appreciated by the Selectors. RT2 - Security Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team Members SO/AC Candidates Independent Experts * Alejandro Pisanty (MX) * Anders Rafting (SE) * Bill Manning (US) * David Cake (AU) * Hartmut Glaser (BR) * Jeff Brueggeman (US) * Kenneth Silva (US) * Martin Hannigan (US) * Ondrej Filip (CZ) * Simon McCalla (UK) * Xiaodong Lee (CN) * Andrea Rigoni (IT) * Atif Nazar (PK) * Paul Mockapetris (US) The Selectors or their Designated Nominees For full information and background of the Members, please refer to http://icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-en.htm<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-en.htm>. RT4 - WHOIS Policy Review Team Members SO/AC Candidates Independent Experts * Emily Taylor (UK) * James Bladel (US) * Kathy Kleiman (US) * Kim von Arx (CA) * Lutz Donnerhacke (DE) * Olivier Iteanu (FR) * Omar Kaminski (BR) * Sarmad Hussain (PK) * Susan Kawaguchi (US) * Wilfried Woeber (AT) * Bill Smith (US) * Lynn Goodendorf (US) Law Enforcement Representatives * Sharon Lemon (UK) The Selectors or their Designated Nominees For full information and background of the Members, please refer to http://icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-4-en.htm<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-4-en.htm>. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

7 October Council Agenda
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 3, 2010

Oct. 3, 2010

Please note that I made a few updates to the 7 October Council meeting posted at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_7_october_20 10 . For transparency purposes, the attached file highlights the changes made in items 1.4, 2, 3 & 6. Glen - Please update the agenda at the GNSO home page if you have time. I made the changes on the GNSO Council Workspace and I also update the motion with the change I made in response to Adrian's suggested and noted that he seconded the motion. Chuck <<Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 7 October 2011 v8.docx>>

1 0

RE: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 2, 2010

Oct. 2, 2010

Please note that I made the same mistake Avri did. I should have said ". . please communicate your objection not later than Wednesday, 6 October, otherwise I will assume that the GNSO endorses Carlos (not Willie)." Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:02 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: Avri Doria > Subject: FW: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT > Importance: High > > Please note the following email string regarding the AoC A&T RT. As > you are aware, the GNSO endorsed Willie Currie for this RT as selected > by the NCSG. Unfortunately, Willie had to withdraw from the RT because > he accepted a government position. As you can see below, the NCSG has > requested that " Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza be installed into the > ATRT as a replacement for Willie" and Peter Dengate Thrush requests > that the GNSO endorse Carlos. > > To facilitate this happening as soon as possible, I would like to ask > if any Councilors object to endorsing Carlos as Willie's replacement. > If so, please communicate your objection not later than Wednesday, 6 > October, otherwise I will assume that the GNSO endorses Willie. As > always, I encourage each of you to consult with your respective > organizations as appropriate. > > Thanks for your prompt consideration of this. > > Chuck > > PS - Please note a correction from Avri. The following sentence should > say Carlos and not Willie: " Willie was a GNSO Council member for the > NCUC in the past." > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:31 PM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca > Subject: Re: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT > > Dear Avri > The formalities appear to be that Heather and I need to consider this > nomination and if appropriate make the appointment. > The Icann site is down, precluding my checking the AoC terms, but a > precursor (from memory) is that a nominee need to be endorsed by the SO > forwarding them. > > Assuming that can be processed, I see no reason why I wouldn't appoint > Carlos as soon as that is confirned. > > 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 2, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The NCSG has discussed several candidates and had decided to request > that Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, be installed into the ATRT as a > replacement for Willie Currie. Carlos has communicated with Willie and > understands the requirements of the task he is signing up for. As I > understand it, they have further conversations planned. > > > > Willie was a GNSO Council member for the NCUC in the past. He is > currently a Professor of Business Law in Brazil. Further information of > his activities can be found at the following website: > > > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/pessoal/carlos-affonso-pereira-de-souza > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chron > oformname=2010PanelistBioView&wspid=322 > > > > I ask that whatever process is necessary for this appointment to be > approved be done in time for Carlos to attend the upcoming ATRT face to > face meeting if it is at all possible. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Avri Doria > > Chair, Executive Committee NCSG

1 0

FW: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 2, 2010

Oct. 2, 2010

Please note the following email string regarding the AoC A&T RT. As you are aware, the GNSO endorsed Willie Currie for this RT as selected by the NCSG. Unfortunately, Willie had to withdraw from the RT because he accepted a government position. As you can see below, the NCSG has requested that " Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza be installed into the ATRT as a replacement for Willie" and Peter Dengate Thrush requests that the GNSO endorse Carlos. To facilitate this happening as soon as possible, I would like to ask if any Councilors object to endorsing Carlos as Willie's replacement. If so, please communicate your objection not later than Wednesday, 6 October, otherwise I will assume that the GNSO endorses Willie. As always, I encourage each of you to consult with your respective organizations as appropriate. Thanks for your prompt consideration of this. Chuck PS - Please note a correction from Avri. The following sentence should say Carlos and not Willie: " Willie was a GNSO Council member for the NCUC in the past." -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:31 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca Subject: Re: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT Dear Avri The formalities appear to be that Heather and I need to consider this nomination and if appropriate make the appointment. The Icann site is down, precluding my checking the AoC terms, but a precursor (from memory) is that a nominee need to be endorsed by the SO forwarding them. Assuming that can be processed, I see no reason why I wouldn't appoint Carlos as soon as that is confirned. 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 2, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Dear all, > > The NCSG has discussed several candidates and had decided to request that Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, be installed into the ATRT as a replacement for Willie Currie. Carlos has communicated with Willie and understands the requirements of the task he is signing up for. As I understand it, they have further conversations planned. > > Willie was a GNSO Council member for the NCUC in the past. He is currently a Professor of Business Law in Brazil. Further information of his activities can be found at the following website: > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/pessoal/carlos-affonso-pereira-de-souza > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono formname=2010PanelistBioView&wspid=322 > > I ask that whatever process is necessary for this appointment to be approved be done in time for Carlos to attend the upcoming ATRT face to face meeting if it is at all possible. > > Thank you, > > Avri Doria > Chair, Executive Committee NCSG

1 0

FW: ATRT and the NCSG Representative
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 2, 2010

Oct. 2, 2010

In case anyone is not aware, Willie Currie, the AoC A&T RT member endorsed by the GNSO via the NCSG, has to leave the A&T RT as explained below. I will shortly forward another string of emails regarding a possible replacement for the NCSG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 8:23 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake Subject: ATRT and the NCSG Representative Hi, Don't know if you know but Willie Currie has to leave the ATRT because he is joining his government in the regulatory agency. So the NCSG would like to replace him. I have spoken to Brian and he is willing as long as the person knows that they cannot reopen issues and that they are expected to work hard (Willie was a real contributor). I also spoke to Heather and she is willing if we present a name under the conditions that Brian is willing to accept. Though we both agreed that the process needs to work through you and the council. I have not spoken to Peter. The NCSG wants to replace Willie because we do not wish to lose the good he did. We are currently trying to figure out who we would put forward. Please let me know how you would like to handle this. thanks a.

1 0

RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

Not sure I see the point in that. We are managers of the process so our interest should be more in any issues that prevented consensus or other difficulties (level of participation, representativeness, etc.) that may (or may not) be mitigated in the future to help us determine if it makes sense to continue, reconstitute, modify the TOR, etc. Spending time on actual proposals will just get us sidetracked into discussions we should not be having. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, October 01, 2010 8:08 am > To: "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei(a)cctld.ru>, "Caroline Greer" > <cgreer(a)mtld.mobi>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > > > > I would be happy to work with the WG co-chairs and any interested > Councilors to arrange a meeting like this.Â In an exchange with Mikey Oâ��Connor, > he suggested the possibility of having a WG representative associated with each > of the proposals present a coupled slides summarizing their proposal and then > giving Councilors a chance to ask questions. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > From: Andrei Kolesnikov > [mailto:andrei@cctld.ru] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:01 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Caroline Greer'; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > Chuck, separate meeting is OK and in general its good idea not > to mix it with general council agenda. There should be meeting about content, > not about process. > > > > --andrei > > > > > > > > > > From: Gomes, > Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:55 PM > To: Caroline Greer; andrei(a)cctld.ru; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, as is usually the case, our agenda is stretched > to the max. We should also realize that doing such a task would likely > require a meeting all its own, so maybe we should consider scheduling a > separate meeting for it and invite the co-chairs. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > From: > owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Caroline Greer > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:46 AM > To: andrei(a)cctld.ru; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > I quite like > this idea Andrei and I think that this is such a big issue for the GNSO that we > should ensure that we understand where the conflicts lie and where we go from > here. Not that any of us is incapable of reading and understanding the report > but it would be good to get a quick summary report and diagnosis (to use your > word Andrei) from the Chairs. I think it would be useful to hear from them > whether more time would be worthwhile or whether we really are just at the end > of the road (my own sense is the latter by the way). > > Would this be of interest to others and would we have time on the agenda Chuck? > > Thanks. > > ---------------- > Caroline Greer > Director of Policy > dotMobi > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Sent: Fri Oct 01 11:20:42 2010 > Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > May I ask a question. While there is no consensus within VI WG, instead of > discussing administrative / procedural issues on how to report / respond to the > Board, why donâ��t we try to discuss main issues of WG disagreements one more > time? > > It will be very convenient to have a short summary presentation of WG chair. To > be honest, scrolling 178 pages Iâ��ve got an expression that this huge piece of > professional work, votes on variants, reference materialsâ�¦ all this just to get > around some very basic facts of conflicting interests. Should we try to > get right diagnosis at least? > > > > Thank you! > > > > --andrei > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM > To: Adrian Kinderis > Cc: tim(a)godaddy.com; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; > cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > Let me be clear: I don't want to drag this on anymore than anyone else. > > > > My question is: can the Council take it upon himself to call a WG's report > final and consider its work done, even though that's not what the WG itself has > reported to us? > > > > I'm all for executive decisions, as long as they are made within the process > that's been set for the body making them. > > StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > Le 1 oct. 2010 Ã 03:04, Adrian Kinderis a > Ã©crit : > > I believe it was â��hasnâ��tâ�� and > â��wonâ��tâ�� reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane. > > > > Letâ��s wind it up gang. > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > KnobenW(a)telekom.de; cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: > Motion re. VI WG > > > > I disagree. The discussion isn't on > whether we end the WG or not. I was reacting to Wolf's proposed change > indicating that the WG was to submit a final report by a set date, something > which the WG has not confirmed to us. > > > > The only formal communication we > have from them is that they haven't reached consensus. > > > StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain > names > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 19:35, > tim(a)godaddy.com a Ã©crit : > > > I think we (the Council) have enough > to go on to make a decision about it. The very fact that they are submitting a > "final" report tells us that we either need to reconstitute this PDP > under a new charter or end it all together. This is our call at this point, not > the WGs. > > > > Tim > > ________________________________ > > > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 > > > To: > > > Cc: ; > > > > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: > Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > I don't agree with your change Wolf > unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs. > > > > > > My understanding is the same as > Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and > nothing has been decided yet. > > > > > > StÃ©phane > > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 15:19, > a Ã©crit : > > > > > > > > > > > > I've inserted an amendment in the > "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned in > my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you accept this as friendly. > > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September > 2010 14:37 > > An: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > > > Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI > WG > > > > I am accepting one of Adrianâ��s > suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change it as highlighted in > the attached file. Other suggested amendments are welcome. Note > also that a second is needed. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > > From: Gomes, Chuck > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 > 1:53 PM > > > To: Council GNSO > > > Subject: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to the Board retreat > resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for > motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second. > Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the > motion on 7 October. > > > > I am not opposed to other ways of > accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

I agree as long as it is an excercise to help us With our decision making and not any attempt for Council to try and do what the WG could not. But I think we should wait for the final report and review that first. It shouldn't take long (to produce or to review) because it will be substantially the same as the interim report. Then we can decide if such a meeting/report would be useful. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, October 01, 2010 6:55 am > To: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer(a)mtld.mobi>, <andrei(a)cctld.ru>, > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, as is usually the case, our agenda is stretched > to the max.Â We should also realize that doing such a task would likely require > a meeting all its own, so maybe we should consider scheduling a separate > meeting for it and invite the co-chairs. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > From: > owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Caroline Greer > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:46 AM > To: andrei(a)cctld.ru; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > I quite like > this idea Andrei and I think that this is such a big issue for the GNSO that we > should ensure that we understand where the conflicts lie and where we go from > here. Not that any of us is incapable of reading and understanding the report but > it would be good to get a quick summary report and diagnosis (to use your word > Andrei) from the Chairs. I think it would be useful to hear from them whether > more time would be worthwhile or whether we really are just at the end of the > road (my own sense is the latter by the way). > > Would this be of interest to others and would we have time on the agenda Chuck? > > Thanks. > > ---------------- > Caroline Greer > Director of Policy > dotMobi > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Sent: Fri Oct 01 11:20:42 2010 > Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > May I ask a question. While there is no consensus within VI WG, instead of > discussing administrative / procedural issues on how to report / respond to the > Board, why donâ��t we try to discuss main issues of WG disagreements one more > time? > > It will be very convenient to have a short summary presentation of WG chair. To > be honest, scrolling 178 pages Iâ��ve got an expression that this huge piece of > professional work, votes on variants, reference materialsâ�¦ all this just to get > around some very basic facts of conflicting interests. Should we try to > get right diagnosis at least? > > > > Thank you! > > > > --andrei > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM > To: Adrian Kinderis > Cc: tim(a)godaddy.com; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; > cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > Let me be clear: I don't want to drag this on anymore than anyone else. > > > > My question is: can the Council take it upon himself to call a WG's report > final and consider its work done, even though that's not what the WG itself has > reported to us? > > > > I'm all for executive decisions, as long as they are made within the process > that's been set for the body making them. > > StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > Le 1 oct. 2010 Ã 03:04, Adrian Kinderis a > Ã©crit : > > I believe it was â��hasnâ��tâ�� and > â��wonâ��tâ�� reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane. > > > > Letâ��s wind it up gang. > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > KnobenW(a)telekom.de; cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: > Motion re. VI WG > > > > I disagree. The discussion isn't on > whether we end the WG or not. I was reacting to Wolf's proposed change > indicating that the WG was to submit a final report by a set date, something > which the WG has not confirmed to us. > > > > The only formal communication we > have from them is that they haven't reached consensus. > > > StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain > names > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 19:35, > tim(a)godaddy.com a Ã©crit : > > > I think we (the Council) have enough > to go on to make a decision about it. The very fact that they are submitting a > "final" report tells us that we either need to reconstitute this PDP > under a new charter or end it all together. This is our call at this point, not > the WGs. > > > > Tim > > ________________________________ > > > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 > +0200 > > > To: > > > Cc: ; > > > > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: > Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > I don't agree with your change Wolf > unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs. > > > > > > My understanding is the same as > Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and > nothing has been decided yet. > > > > > > StÃ©phane > > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 15:19, > a Ã©crit : > > > > > > > > > > > > I've inserted an amendment in the > "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned in > my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you accept this as friendly. > > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September > 2010 14:37 > > > An: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > > > Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI > WG > > > I am accepting one of Adrianâ��s > suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change it as highlighted in > the attached file. Other suggested amendments are welcome. Note > also that a second is needed. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > > From: Gomes, Chuck > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 > 1:53 PM > > > To: Council GNSO > > > Subject: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to the Board retreat > resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for > motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second. > Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the > motion on 7 October. > > > > I am not opposed to other ways of > accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Caroline Greer Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

I quite like this idea Andrei and I think that this is such a big issue for the GNSO that we should ensure that we understand where the conflicts lie and where we go from here. Not that any of us is incapable of reading and understanding the report but it would be good to get a quick summary report and diagnosis (to use your word Andrei) from the Chairs. I think it would be useful to hear from them whether more time would be worthwhile or whether we really are just at the end of the road (my own sense is the latter by the way). Would this be of interest to others and would we have time on the agenda Chuck? Thanks. ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Oct 01 11:20:42 2010 Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG May I ask a question. While there is no consensus within VI WG, instead of discussing administrative / procedural issues on how to report / respond to the Board, why don’t we try to discuss main issues of WG disagreements one more time? It will be very convenient to have a short summary presentation of WG chair. To be honest, scrolling 178 pages I’ve got an expression that this huge piece of professional work, votes on variants, reference materials… all this just to get around some very basic facts of conflicting interests. Should we try to get right diagnosis at least? Thank you! --andrei From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: tim(a)godaddy.com; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG Let me be clear: I don't want to drag this on anymore than anyone else. My question is: can the Council take it upon himself to call a WG's report final and consider its work done, even though that's not what the WG itself has reported to us? I'm all for executive decisions, as long as they are made within the process that's been set for the body making them. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur général / General manager INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names Sent from my iPad Le 1 oct. 2010 à 03:04, Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> a écrit : I believe it was “hasn’t” and “won’t” reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane. Let’s wind it up gang. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM To: tim(a)godaddy.com Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG I disagree. The discussion isn't on whether we end the WG or not. I was reacting to Wolf's proposed change indicating that the WG was to submit a final report by a set date, something which the WG has not confirmed to us. The only formal communication we have from them is that they haven't reached consensus. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur général / General manager INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names Sent from my iPad Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : I think we (the Council) have enough to go on to make a decision about it. The very fact that they are submitting a "final" report tells us that we either need to reconstitute this PDP under a new charter or end it all together. This is our call at this point, not the WGs. Tim ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 To: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Cc: <cgomes(a)verisign.com>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs. My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet. Stéphane Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> a écrit : I've inserted an amendment in the "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned in my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you accept this as friendly. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 14:37 An: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG I am accepting one of Adrian’s suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change it as highlighted in the attached file. Other suggested amendments are welcome. Note also that a second is needed. Chuck <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>> _____________________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Motion re. VI WG << File: Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc >> In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second. Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October. I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off. Chuck <Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>

3 3

RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

I am accepting one of Adrian's suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change it as highlighted in the attached file. Other suggested amendments are welcome. Note also that a second is needed. Chuck <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>> _____________________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Motion re. VI WG << File: Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc >> In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second. Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October. I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off. Chuck

7 11

RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

Stephane, go back and reread the notice they sent. It specifically mentions the final report. So we will certainly have a decision to make. I don't see any problem with Chuck's motion whether it includes a set date for the WG to deliver a final report or not. My point is that they are delivering a final report as noted in their notice and so any next steps are our decision to make including whether to continue or not. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > From: Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 5:18 pm > To: "tim(a)godaddy.com" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > "KnobenW(a)telekom.de" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>, > "cgomes(a)verisign.com" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, > "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > I disagree. The discussion isn't on whether we end the WG or not. I was reacting to Wolf's proposed change indicating that the WG was to submit a final report by a set date, something which the WG has not confirmed to us. > > The only formal communication we have from them is that they haven't reached consensus. > StÃ©phane Van GelderDirecteur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names > > Sent from my iPad > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 19:35, tim(a)godaddy.com a Ã©crit : > > > > I think we (the Council) have enough to go on to make a decision about it. The very fact that they are submitting a "final" report tells us that we either need to reconstitute this PDP under a new charter or end it all together. This is our call at this point, not the WGs. > > Tim > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 > To: > Cc: ; > Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs. > > My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet. > > StÃ©phane > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 15:19, a Ã©crit : > > > I've inserted an amendment in the "Whereas..." which > reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned in my E-Mail earlier today and > would be glad you accept this as friendly. > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, > Chuck > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 14:37 > An: > Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > I am accepting one of Adrianâ��s suggested amendments to this motion as friendly > and change it as highlighted in the attached file. Other suggested > amendments are welcome. Note also that a second is > needed. > Chuck > > > > > _____________________________________________ > From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 > PM > To: Council > GNSO > Subject: Motion re. VI > WG > > > > In response to the Board > retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance > requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate > a second. Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to > determine support for the motion on 7 October. > I am not opposed to other > ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to > kick it off. > Chuck > > > > >

3 2

FW: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

Please note the following communication from the co-chairs of the VI PDP WG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Roberto Gaetano Subject: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration To: GNSO Council From: Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor (VI working-group co-chairs) Subject: Notice with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration ____ In response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 resolution by the ICANN Board, we would like to notify the GNSO Council that to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration. We plan to incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting.

4 4