October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Board review of Papers
by Rosemary Sinclair 08 Oct '10

08 Oct '10

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 08 Oct '10

08 Oct '10

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 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

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 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

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 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

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 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

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 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

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 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

[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 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

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 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

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