November 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Policy Update Webinar Recording for distribution
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 23, 2010

Nov. 23, 2010

As you might be aware, the ICANN Policy Staff provided a briefing on Monday 22 November, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO) in preparation for the ICANN Meeting in Cartagena. For those of you that were not able to attend, you can view the recording of the webinar here: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/p95745149/. In addition the slides, transcript and the MP3 recording are available here: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#nov (see entry for 22 November). If you have any follow up questions, feel free to contact the policy staff at policy-staff(a)icann.org. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: SSR Review Team - selection of replacement for Ken Silva
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 22, 2010

Nov. 22, 2010

FYI Chuck From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; Rod Beckstrom; Alice Jansen; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: SSR Review Team - selection of replacement for Ken Silva Dear Chuck, This is to inform you as GNSO Council Chair - for further information to your membership - that the Review Team Selectors, Heather Dryden and Rod Beckstrom, have reached a decision on how to fill the vacancy in the SSR Review Team following the resignation of Ken Silva from that team. The Selectors wish to thank you and the GNSO for putting forward two excellent candidates, both eminently qualified. The Selectors' final choice was to retain Rodney Joffe as new member of the SSR Review Team, subject to final review of his Statement of Interest. Very best regards Olof ------------------------ Olof Nordling Director, Services Relations Branch Manager, ICANN Brussels office ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 Mobile: +32.475.420805 Fax: +32.2.234 7848 E-mail: olof.nordling(a)icann.org www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>

1 0

FW: Andrei Kolesnikov
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 20, 2010

Nov. 20, 2010

Forwarded From: David W. Maher Glen: The Contracted Party House supports the nomination of Andrei Kolesnikov as the NCA representative of the House. David David W. Maher Senior Vice President - Law & Policy Public Interest Registry http://www.pir.org<https://mail.pir.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://mail.pir.org/exchweb…> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: David W. Maher Subject: Andrei Kolesnikov Chuck - The Registry and Registrar Stakeholder Groups support the NCA assignment of Andrei Kolesnikov to the Contracted Party House. Regards, Mason Cole Registrar Stakeholder Group Chair

3 3

ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 20, 2010

Nov. 20, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19nov10-en.htm ________________________________ ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy Proposed Final Status Report to the GNSO Council on AGP Limits Policy Implementation 19 November 2010 The Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy, implemented on 1 April 2009, resulted in a 99.7% decrease in AGP deletes and illustrates the success of ICANN’s consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process. Community members identified a problem, initiated policy discussions, and generated a solution that has produced effective and sustained results. ICANN today is posting its fourth and proposed final status report<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-18nov10-en.pdf> to the GNSO on the implementation of AGP Limits Policy. This report presents ICANN’s experience implementing the Policy, provides statistical information on net new registrations, AGP deletes, the percent of names deleted during the AGP for each TLD, and the disposition of exemption requests for the period. ICANN committed to analyzing and reporting on the effects of the Policy to the GNSO at six-month intervals for two years after its implementation. The first status report<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-10jun09-en.pdf> was issued on 10 June 2009, the second status report<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-14dec09-en.pdf> on 14 December 2009, and the third status report<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-01jun10-en.pdf> on 1 June 2010. The purpose of these reports is “to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.” On 10 June 2010, the GSNO Council discussed whether additional Policy work was necessary based upon the results of the implementation and whether the reporting requirement should be amended or eliminated.! At that meeting the GNSO Council determined that the successful outcomes from the Policy did not warrant additional work at that time and that staff should continue its reporting requirement through the end of the two-year cycle. The publication of this fourth and proposed final report fulfills this reporting requirement to the GNSO. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report
by Craig Schwartz Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

Dear Councilors, Please find attached the fourth AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report. This proposed final report provides a status update on the implementation of the Policy since it was announced to the community on 17 December 2008. ICANN looks forward to providing an update to the Council at one of its future meetings and answering any questions councilors may have about this information. Best, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

3 2

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 18 November, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20101118-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#nov Happy Listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

8 10

Pre-Cartagena ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

REMINDER http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-04nov10-en.htm ________________________________ Pre-Cartagena ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. 4 November 2010 Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Cartagena remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Monday 22 November at 14.00 and 20.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * Vertical Integration Policy Development Process (GNSO) * Registration Abuse Policies Recommendations (GNSO) * Registrar Accreditation Agreement (GNSO) * WHOIS Studies (GNSO) * Internationalized Domain Names PDP (ccNSO) * Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group (ccNSO) * Global policy for handling IPv4 address space (ASO) The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the slides and MP3 will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, 14.00 UTC or 20.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
by Tim Ruiz Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

Why? This in relation to procedures for Council, not policy. If the OSC doesn't like our changes will we accept that? I doubt it. To send it back with the expectation that they rubber stamp it just wastes everyone's time. Let's tweak it to be workable for a majority (personally, I like the language on noncommercial and personal interests but a majority may not), get it approved and move on. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, > Thursday 28 October 2010 > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Fri, November 19, 2010 6:04 am > To: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Cc: "<KnobenW(a)telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>, > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to make it that way. Has to go back through GCOT too, no? > > > > BD > > Depends on what we're trying to do. But I expect there would be changes that would need to go back to through the OSC's team yes. > > Stéphane

1 0

RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Prioritizatio process
by Rosemary Sinclair Nov. 18, 2010

Nov. 18, 2010

Hi Jaime I've been thru so many formal priority setting processes - using computers, sticky notes, ranking scales, etc etc I now think we can only do this in discussion What confuses me is trying to externalize and express in advance my idea of "priorities" All life is negotiation and this is another example ......I think????????? A baseline would be whether the projects fit with the ICANN Strategic Plan and AoC but then how do we deal with the "bottom up" nature of community project identification??? It's what make ICANN such an interesting beast! Cheers 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 <mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au> Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au ________________________________ From: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf [mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br] Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 2:00 PM To: Rosemary Sinclair Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RES: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Prioritizatio process Dear Rosemary, The problem still rests in the phrase "if priority is agreed". How to do that without a method to score relative value among all councilors? Jaime Wagner jaime(a)powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 www.powerself.com.br <http://www.powerself.com.br/> De: rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au [mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au] Enviada em: quinta-feira, 18 de novembro de 2010 10:53 Para: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; GNSO Council Assunto: Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Prioritizatio process One other way to prioritise is to work backwards from the available resources If we combine this with a process of reviewing progress being made on policy issues we get to a practical assessment of what can be done with the resources available and what priority the Community is indicating by its actions So for me we need a process of identifying resources and reviewing progress Issues that outstanding could be reviewed as part of the Strat Plan/Operations planning process - and if priority is agreed, resources could be identified and with the possible consequence that some projects may need to be wound up or deferred.. Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:15:23 +1100 To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf<jaime(a)powerself.com.br> Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'<cgomes(a)verisign.com>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Prioritizatio process Thanks Jaimie, and here's a short recap of what I was saying, as Chuck requested: - Keep a model-based approach but simplify. - Council Leadership could play a part in suggesting priority projects to Council, those suggestions based on model approach. - Or we could take our thinking "outside the box". One idea: use US Congress style system of wiping the slate clean at the end of each calendar year. Others will no doubt have different ideas to suggest as well. Stéphane Le 18 nov. 2010 à 13:09, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf a écrit : Chuck, As you asked me to put in writing my thoughts shared during today's call on prioritization of GNSO work, here they are. I would like the Council to consider doing an annual update of the process brought up by the WG, because of two benefits 1) Improving general awareness by the Councli members of the work going on; 2) A valuable tool for leadership in figuring the degree of consensus on the relative value of the different projects. Jaime Wagner jaime(a)powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 www.powerself.com.br <http://www.powerself.com.br/>

1 0

Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Prioritizatio process
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au Nov. 18, 2010

Nov. 18, 2010

One other way to prioritise is to work backwards from the available resources If we combine this with a process of reviewing progress being made on policy issues we get to a practical assessment of what can be done with the resources available and what priority the Community is indicating by its actions So for me we need a process of identifying resources and reviewing progress Issues that outstanding could be reviewed as part of the Strat Plan/Operations planning process - and if priority is agreed, resources could be identified and with the possible consequence that some projects may need to be wound up or deferred.. Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:15:23 To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf<jaime(a)powerself.com.br> Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'<cgomes(a)verisign.com>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Prioritizatio process Thanks Jaimie, and here's a short recap of what I was saying, as Chuck requested: - Keep a model-based approach but simplify. - Council Leadership could play a part in suggesting priority projects to Council, those suggestions based on model approach. - Or we could take our thinking "outside the box". One idea: use US Congress style system of wiping the slate clean at the end of each calendar year. Others will no doubt have different ideas to suggest as well. Stéphane Le 18 nov. 2010 à 13:09, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf a écrit : > Chuck, > > As you asked me to put in writing my thoughts shared during today’s call on prioritization of GNSO work, here they are. > > I would like the Council to consider doing an annual update of the process brought up by the WG, because of two benefits > > 1) Improving general awareness by the Councli members of the work going on; > 2) A valuable tool for leadership in figuring the degree of consensus on the relative value of the different projects. > > Jaime Wagner > jaime(a)powerself.com.br > Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 > Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 > www.powerself.com.br

2 1