November 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Motion to extend PPSC and OSC charters
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

Rob kindly reminded me that the latest extensions of the PPSC and OSC end in Cartagena. Because both SC's and some of their WTs are still working, I am submitting this motion to extend their charters further. Whereas in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors (see - GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan) http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-imple mentation-plan-16oct08.pdf; Whereas that framework included the formation of two Steering Committees - the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee - to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams designed to develop specific recommendations to implement specific aspects of the improvements; Whereas the Council intended the charters of the committees (and their attendant work teams) to be temporary and not to extend beyond the 2009 annual ICANN meeting without specific action by the Council; Whereas the Council has now twice extended the terms of those committees to allow the GNSO community implementation recommendations work to continue (see - http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm and http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10mar10-en.htm) Whereas the Council acknowledges the hard work of those work teams and notes that those committees and their teams are diligently continuing their work; RESOLVED, The Council extends the terms of the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee and their respective work teams as necessary through the San Francisco ICANN public meeting in March 2011. The Council directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify the specific targets and benchmarks for their work and to share that information with the Council by 19 January 2011.

8 13

Motion to approve DSSA WG charter
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

One of the GNSO's action items in our 8 December Council meeting is to consider the proposed charter of a community DNS Security & Stability Analysis WG. In that regard I am submitting the following motion. MOTION APPROVING THE DRAFT CHARTER OF THE JOINT DNS SECURITY AND STABILITY ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (DSSA-WG) WHEREAS, at their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting in June 2010 the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global domain name system (DNS); WHEREAS, this issue is considered to be of common interest to the participating Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others, and should be preferably undertaken in a collaborative effort; WHEREAS, the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO agreed to establish a Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG), in accordance with each organization's own rules and procedures and invite other AC's to liaise and engage with the DSSA-WG in a manner they consider to be appropriate; WHEREAS, a Drafting Team of the Chairs of the ccNSO, the ALAC, and the GNSO, along with interested representatives from those organizations, produced a Draft Charter and posted it for the review of the participating SOs and ACs on 15 November 2010 at <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf> ; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves this Draft Charter and encourages GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups, and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants of the DSSA-WG with demonstrated expertise in the objectives of the Draft Charter. Chuck

2 1

Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

All, I hereby submit a motion to approve the recommendations of the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement for consideration at our 8 December Council meeting. -*- Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and desires to approve of the recommendations and proposals contained therein; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in the Final Report for improvements to the RAA; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the Final Report and approves of the Form of the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. Process A states: "1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO council (i.e., final form of this report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy. 2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement. 3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussion on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress. 4. Negotiating group reports [to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public] periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback. 5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat step 4 as necessary. 6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. 7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form. 8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6." RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. -*- Safe travels! Kristina

2 2

ICANN Board agenda - 10 Dec 2010
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-10dec10-en.htm Agenda for Board Meeting - Cartagena 10 December 2010 Consent Agenda: =============== 1. Approval of Minutes from 28 October 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting 2. Approval of Minutes from 5 November 2010 ICANN Board Meeting 3. Thank You's 4. From the Board Governance Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting): a. Approval of Bylaw Amendments on Board Member Term Transitions b. Response to Reconsideration Requests 10-2 and 10-3 5. From the Structural Improvements Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting): a. Approval of Posting of New Constituency Charter b. Approval of NomCom Review Implementation c. Approval of RSSAC Review High-Level Implementation Plan 6. From the Board Finance Committee (tentative depending on committee meeting): a. ICANN Investment Policy 7. Approval of Location of the Asia June 2011 Meeting (tentative depending on Finance & PPC committee meetings) 8. Acknowledgment of Receipt of FY 11 Update to the ICANN Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency 9. Approval of MoU with the New Partnership for Africa's Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD/NPCA) 10. Status Report on AOC Reviews 11. UDRP Status Update Main Agenda: ============ 1. From the Structural Improvements Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting): 2. SSAC Bylaw Changes 3. Strategic Plan 4. New gTLDs a. Guidebook Consideration b. Morality & Public Order c. Geographic Names 5. SSAC Report on Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System 6. ICM Registry Sponsored Top-Level Domains - .XXX 7. Items Arising from the Cartagena Meeting 8. Any Other Business Agenda for Organizational Meeting - 10 December 2010 - Cartagena ================================================================= 1. Election of Board Chairman 2. Election of Board Vice-Chairman 3. Appointment of Membership of Board Committees 4. Confirmation of Officers of ICANN 5. Other Business

2 2

Updated SOI
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

Hi, I have been asked about the projects I am involved in as a consultant, so I thought it could be useful to detail them in my updated Statement of Interest, which I include in this email. Best regards, Olga* * * * *Statement of Interest * Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee I hold a degree in Electronic and Electric Engineer, an MBA, a Masters Degree in Telecommunication Regulation and a PhD in Business Administration. >From the academic side, I am a professor at the University of Buenos Aires, at the Instituto Tecnológico Buenos Aires and at the Diplomacy Career of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina. In these institutions I teach technology, organizational structure and public policy related with technology. I am a member of the MAG, Multistakeholder Advisory Group for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). In the private sector, I have worked as a consultant for companies and non-governmental organizations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela, USA, Canada and Germany. Presently these are the most important projects I am involved in: Enhance Internet connectivity in rural areas in the interior of Argentina - Jointly with UNESCO. South School on Internet Governance - Third edition - Mexico DF April 2011. Telecommunications and Internet license management for rural Internet connectivity projects including e-commerce platforms for agricultural cooperatives. President of the Forum "Women, engineering and business" of the World Engineering Congress 2010 and president of the Commission "Women engineers for development in Argentina" in the Centro Argentino de Ingenieros. In the near future I plan also to be involved in the following activities: Roaming regulations harmonization in Latin America - Project financed by the Interamerican Bank of Development BID. Fellowship program for "Women engineers for development in Argentina". Commercial and marketing strategic planning for domain name resellers in Latin America and the Caribbean. Public wifi network development for cities in Argentina. I am also the Secretary of the ISOC Argentina chapter ISOC AR and a certified engineer of the National Engineers Council.

2 4

Results of the GNSO Council Election for Chair
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

Dear Council members, Attached please find the results of the GNSO Council Election for Chair. Please check your vote in one of the two attached files, one has the results of the Non-contracted Party House, and one has the results of the Contracted Party House, and if it is not properly registered, please let me know immediately. Report for election 4f150d18b37, Non-contracted Parties, 2010-11-19 (as attached) 0 None of the above 8 Olga Cavalli = 61.5% 5 Stéphane van Gelder = 38.5% Report for election b51e9b79abb, Contracted Parties, 2010-11-19 (as attached) 0 None of the above 0 Olga Cavalli = 0% 7 Stéphane van Gelder = 100% According to the procedures http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2010.htm approved by the Council on 28 October 2010, Stephane van Gelder, with a total of 138.5% goes through to the second round. The ballots for the second round will be distributed on Wednesday, 1 December and the voting period will run through until Tuesday, 7 December at 22:00UTC (17:00 COT Cartagena). Please respond by voting on the web form. The ballot will look like this: [ ] Stéphane van Gelder [ ] none of the above 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

template link
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

Dear Chuck, Here is the template version, if you cannot open it I will look for another link to send you. https://wiki.icann.org/download/attachments/24314021/icann39-Cartagena-PPT-… Thanks, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Second round of voting for chair if needed
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

As everyone knows, the first round of voting for Council chair will end on Monday, 29 December. The results will be communicated as soon as possible thereafter. If neither Olga or Stéphane receive at least 60% of the votes from each house and if the sum of the percent of votes received in each house for one of them is higher than the other, then the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) call for a second ballot between the leading candidate and 'none of the above', but do not specify exactly when that second ballot should happen. Here are two options that I would like feedback on: 1) send out the second ballot on Wednesday, December 1 and close that ballot at the end of Constituency Day on December 7; 2) hold the second ballot in the public Council meeting on 8 December in Cartagena. Please communicate any preferences you have not later than close of business on Monday, 29 December so that I have some basis for making a decision on this. To the extent possible in the short time available, please obtain input from your respective groups. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Chuck

3 4

FW: Motion to extend PPSC and OSC charters
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

I am forwarding the following message from Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, regarding the status of the OSC and PPSC. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 4:35 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: J. Scott Evans YAHOO Subject: Motion to extend PPSC and OSC charters Chuck, I note there is discussion on Council about the role of the OSC and PPSC. As Chair of the OSC may I ask you to forward this to Council? Philip ---------------------------- Council members, when the OSC and PPSC structures were first developed and I was on Council, I spoke against the three tier approach: 1. work team (WT) 2. steering committee review (SC) 3. Council adoption. I feared duplication and interference. Now I am off Council and have worked in the middle layer I see merit in it. There is no duplication and there is burden sharing of the work. The community-based work teams do the real work and thrash out proposals. The SC's then provide a second community-based oversight which is intended to ensure the WT proposals: - met the objective / terms of reference of the group - are fit for purpose - are practical without being overly burdensome. This oversight has often resulted in referring back proposals to the WTs for refinement before they get sent to Council. This is intended to allow volunteer Council members to get on with managing policy. The third step - Council adoption - should not be a rubber stamp but insightful review of the procedures by Council with a view to practicality. Of course with some new procedures we don't know how they will work (efficient or burdensome) until they are tested. At that point the current system is Council alerts the SCs "unfit for purpose because of xxx and yyy" and the SCs review and improve. That seems a good system to me. I urge therefore an extension of the mandates of both SCs to allow these community members to improve the processes of Council while Council focuses on managing policy. Philip Sheppard Chair OSC ---------------------------

1 0

Chair/Vice Chair Terms
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 29, 2010

Nov. 29, 2010

In our ongoing saga of applying the new GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) we have identified another missing ingredient: Neither the Bylaws nor the GOP define the exact terms for Council chair and vice chairs. The Bylaws define the terms for Councilors as beginning and ending at the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting, but no such clarification is given for the chair and vice chairs. So we have another task for the OSC/GCOT. In the meantime, we have a decision in front of us as to when we should transition to the newly elected chair. With the lack of detail in the Bylaws and GOP, I am assuming that this is a decision that the Council should make for Cartagena. I want to state right up front that I am comfortable with whatever is decided and will fully cooperate to make it happen. Following is some information that may be helpful. As far as I can tell the only direction that may be even indirectly applicable in the Bylaws from Article X is this: * ". . . the regular term of each GNSO Council member shall begin at the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting and shall end at the conclusion of the second ICANN annual meeting thereafter" (paragraph 2) * "The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year." (paragraph 7) * "The procedures for selecting the Chair and any other officers are contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held." (paragraph 7) Assuming that the procedures will be fixed in the next few months, I believe our only concern at this time is what we should do in Cartagena. Focusing on the round of voting that is now underway, we have several scenarios that are possible (see GOP Section 2.2): 1. If at least 60% of each house selects 'none of the above', then each house initiates a new nomination period and a new election will be held no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. 2. If both Olga and Stéphane receive the same total percentage of votes from both houses or if one of them a higher total percentage than the other but ties with 'none of the above', a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days with the candidates remaining the same. 3. If either Olga or Stéphane is elected chair in the first round of voting (i.e., receives at least 60% support from each house), we will have elected a new chair prior to the Cartagena meeting. 4. If neither candidate receives 60% support from both houses and one of them receives a higher score than the other (score = % of votes in CPH + % of votes in the NCPH), a second round of voting will be held between the one with the highest score and 'none of the above': a. If the remaining candidate receives 60% support from both houses, we have a successful election. b. If the remaining candidate does not reach the 60% threshold of each house, then each house initiates a new nomination period and a new election will be held no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. In scenarios 1, 2 and 4.b, we will not know who the new chair is in Cartagena and the vice chairs will assume the leadership of the Council until such time as we have a new chair. But note that the new vice chairs cannot take over their vice chair roles if they are not yet on the Council because the vice chairs have to be Councilors. It looks very much like this will actually be the case for the CPH. In scenario 3, it would be feasible to transfer the chair position to the new chair at whatever point the Council decides. In scenario 4.a, if the second round of voting results in the election of the chair before or in Cartagena, it would be possible to transfer the chair position to the new chair at whatever point the Council decides after we have a successful election; if not, then we will not know who the new chair is in Cartagena. I think it is best for me to stay on the sidelines on this issue except for trying to help from a procedural point of view. But I would like to ask Olga and Stéphane to propose a way forward on this for Council consideration and want to strongly encourage them to not worry the least about my feelings. Like I said above, I am comfortable with whatever is decided as long as we have a defined plan that complies with the Bylaws and provides a smooth transition. Olga & Stéphane - Are willing to work together to do this and submit a proposed plan to the Council for consideration? Chuck

4 6