October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

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

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