December 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

With Ray Fassett's permission, I am forwarding his opinion as chair of the GCOT regarding the intent of the GCOT with regard to the 8 day requirement. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@goto.jobs] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:16 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures Chuck, I admit that I do not recall the GCOT exacting out that 8 days means 192 hours. I also cannot say with absolute surety that the GCOT meant "including" the 8th day which could mean less than 192 hours. Now, here's what I think is fair to say: The GCOT did not take the approach of exacting out every possible "what-if" scenario from the procedures. Part of this is because 1) it is an impossible task to do, 2) brings in the law of diminishing returns (inefficiencies), and 3) was implied there would be real world experiences and from the lessons learned modify the procedures through the course of time consistent to the real world experiences. In this example, I am willing to say that there is a spirit to allow the GNSO Council Chair some reasonable discretion in managing the affairs of the GNSO. Hope this helps, Ray Fassett Chair GCOT > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:19 PM > To: Ray Fassett; Philip Sheppard > Subject: FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures > > Did the GCOT and OSC intend that the 8 day advance requirement for > motions should literally be 8 x 24 hours = 192 hours? > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:12 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures > > Interesting how we pick what we are going to adhere to process wise > (certain requests to assign proxies a while back for example) and what > we don't. I maintain that a day is a day (24 hours) and that is exactly > what the GCOT meant. Regarding what we did in the past, it is just > that, > the past (two wrongs don't make a right and all that nonsense). Popping > motions in the mix at the 11th hour is becoming the norm, not the > exception. If the Council votes to make an exception on these two > motions then I guess that's the way it is. But questioning what a "day" > means is a rediculous argument. These motions did not meet the deadline > and I maintain that any exception requires a vote. > > If the GCOT meant something else then I would like that explained by > them and I would propose that we pull back the procedures in whole to > have them all reviewed to be sure we don't have any other convenient > interpretations pop up unexpectedly. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 1:52 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Tim, > > My guess is, if we took a survey of Councilors, many would not > interpret days so literally as you do and I suspect that the GCOT > didn’t mean it that literally either. But I will point out that Glen > sent a message reminding Councilors of the 8-day advance requirement > and > noted that motions were due by 30 November. Glen did that at my > request > and as you can tell, I have never interpreted the requirement as 192 > hours. If it means 192 hours, then I suspect that we have missed the > deadline many times in the past. > > Regardless, I still maintain that we should spend our time focusing on > the issues not the process, especially when we are talking about > something where we clearly had different understandings regarding the > deadline. > > Chuck > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures > > > > The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating procedures > clearly states that motions must be submitted "...no later than 8 days > before the GNSO Council meeting." Given that our meeting is scheduled > to > begin at 1900 UTC on the 8th, neither of the motions submitted > yesterday > by Mary and Kristina met the deadline of 1900 UTC the 30th. > > Again, given that ICANN involves one or more days of travel for many of > us, and that any 8 day period also includes at least one weekend, I > think it is crucial that motions are submitted as soon as possible and > the deadline should be strictly observed. > > Tim > >

1 0

RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

Interesting how we pick what we are going to adhere to process wise (certain requests to assign proxies a while back for example) and what we don't. I maintain that a day is a day (24 hours) and that is exactly what the GCOT meant. Regarding what we did in the past, it is just that, the past (two wrongs don't make a right and all that nonsense). Popping motions in the mix at the 11th hour is becoming the norm, not the exception. If the Council votes to make an exception on these two motions then I guess that's the way it is. But questioning what a "day" means is a rediculous argument. These motions did not meet the deadline and I maintain that any exception requires a vote. If the GCOT meant something else then I would like that explained by them and I would propose that we pull back the procedures in whole to have them all reviewed to be sure we don't have any other convenient interpretations pop up unexpectedly. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 1:52 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, My guess is, if we took a survey of Councilors, many would not interpret days so literally as you do and I suspect that the GCOT didn’t mean it that literally either. But I will point out that Glen sent a message reminding Councilors of the 8-day advance requirement and noted that motions were due by 30 November. Glen did that at my request and as you can tell, I have never interpreted the requirement as 192 hours. If it means 192 hours, then I suspect that we have missed the deadline many times in the past. Regardless, I still maintain that we should spend our time focusing on the issues not the process, especially when we are talking about something where we clearly had different understandings regarding the deadline. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating procedures clearly states that motions must be submitted "...no later than 8 days before the GNSO Council meeting." Given that our meeting is scheduled to begin at 1900 UTC on the 8th, neither of the motions submitted yesterday by Mary and Kristina met the deadline of 1900 UTC the 30th. Again, given that ICANN involves one or more days of travel for many of us, and that any 8 day period also includes at least one weekend, I think it is crucial that motions are submitted as soon as possible and the deadline should be strictly observed. Tim

2 1

Motion deadline per operating procedures
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating procedures clearly states that motions must be submitted "...no later than 8 days before the GNSO Council meeting." Given that our meeting is scheduled to begin at 1900 UTC on the 8th, neither of the motions submitted yesterday by Mary and Kristina met the deadline of 1900 UTC the 30th. Again, given that ICANN involves one or more days of travel for many of us, and that any 8 day period also includes at least one weekend, I think it is crucial that motions are submitted as soon as possible and the deadline should be strictly observed. Tim

3 2

RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

Not sure how "at least 8 days" can be interpreted as anything but eight 24 hour periods, at least on this planet. If it was intended to mean anything different it would have been defined as such (8 days or any part thereof). A "day" is universally accepted as meaning 24 hours. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 11:20 am > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > Because Section 3.3 says "days", the motion was timely as > long as it was submitted on the 30th, which it was. > > If, going forward, the Council wishes to adopt Tim's > interpretation, we should amend Section 3.3 to change "8 days" to "192 > hours". Unless and until such an amendment, my motion was > timely. > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim > Ruiz > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM > To: > council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Motion deadline per > operating procedures > > > > The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating > procedures > clearly states that motions must be submitted "...no later than > 8 days > before the GNSO Council meeting." Given that our meeting is > scheduled to > begin at 1900 UTC on the 8th, neither of the motions submitted > yesterday > by Mary and Kristina met the deadline of 1900 UTC the > 30th. > > Again, given that ICANN involves one or more days of travel for > many of > us, and that any 8 day period also includes at least one weekend, > I > think it is crucial that motions are submitted as soon as possible > and > the deadline should be strictly > observed. > > Tim > > >

2 1

FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

and so was Mary's. ________________________________ From: Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:20 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures Because Section 3.3 says "days", the motion was timely as long as it was submitted on the 30th, which it was. If, going forward, the Council wishes to adopt Tim's interpretation, we should amend Section 3.3 to change "8 days" to "192 hours". Unless and until such an amendment, my motion was timely. ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating procedures clearly states that motions must be submitted "...no later than 8 days before the GNSO Council meeting." Given that our meeting is scheduled to begin at 1900 UTC on the 8th, neither of the motions submitted yesterday by Mary and Kristina met the deadline of 1900 UTC the 30th. Again, given that ICANN involves one or more days of travel for many of us, and that any 8 day period also includes at least one weekend, I think it is crucial that motions are submitted as soon as possible and the deadline should be strictly observed. Tim

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

I thought it was eight calendar days. Given the time of our meeting on the 8th, this came in with less than eight days. In any event, SG members have started to travel and that will continue throught the weekend with arrivals Thurs through Mon (hopefully those already stranded in the UK get through sooner than later). There is no way to have coherent SG discussions on this prior to Constituency day which doesn't leave much time for actual discussion and any necessary consensus building (which may have changed based on the Board's response). So I sense another motion that will just get delayed. Given that so many motions are coming in at or near the deadline, I propose that we consider moving the deadline up to 14 calendar days and would appreciate others thoughts on that. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 8:37 am > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Technically, I think the deadline was met because the date on the message was 30 November.Â Please correct me if I am wrong on that. > > It seems to me that the more important question is whether there is support for the motion or if there are concerns about it that we can discuss in our respective groups and on the Council list in the next week leading up to our 8 December Council meeting. > > Chuck > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:56 AM > To: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG > > > > > This motion is too late isn't it? It came to my inbox at 3:00 UTC 1Dec. > And I am just now up and able to review it. Given upcoming travel, need > to vet with SGs or Cs, we should be very strict about the deadline, > IMHO. > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG > > From: "Mary Wong" > > Date: Tue, November 30, 2010 9:02 pm > > To: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello again everyone > > > > I'd like to propose a motion for the Council's consideration at the 8 December meeting. This motion relates to the recommendations made recently by the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the DAG.) > > > > You'll recall that the Council supported GNSO participation in the CWG, in a resolution passed on 8 September. As you may also recall, the CWG's task included making recommendations that would render the MAPO section of the DAG acceptable to the broader community, yet still accomplishing the implementation of Recommendation 6. > > > > > > I understand that there is concern amongst some Council members that continuing a cross-community working group model will in some way diminish the GNSO's role in policy development and/or impinge on Consensus Policies. This concern is part of a wider discussion that to my mind is not implicated by the Rec 6 CWG process or recommendations, in relation to which the much more pressing concern is to ensure that the ICANN Board, staff and community do NOT interpret the Council's silence and inactivity, following the original September motion, as lack of GNSO community support for the CWG's recommendations. > > > > Thus, I propose a motion, as follows: > > > > WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SOÃ¢ï¿½ï¿½s) and Advisory Committee (ACÃ¢ï¿½ï¿½s) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law; > > > > WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010; > > > > AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the ICANN Board and community; > > > > RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO; > > > > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby endorses the CWG recommendations as representing. as far as possible, consensus among the various stakeholders in the ICANN community on effective mechanisms for the implementation of Recommendation 6. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > > > > > Mary W S Wong > > Professor of Law > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > > Two White Street > > Concord, NH 03301 > > USA > > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law > > Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now > > known as the University of > > New Hampshire School of Law. Please > > note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the > > convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University > > of New Hampshire School of Law, please > > visit law.unh.edu > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

This motion is too late isn't it? It came to my inbox at 3:00 UTC 1Dec. And I am just now up and able to review it. Given upcoming travel, need to vet with SGs or Cs, we should be very strict about the deadline, IMHO. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG > From: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Date: Tue, November 30, 2010 9:02 pm > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Hello again everyone > > I'd like to propose a motion for the Council's consideration at the 8 December meeting. This motion relates to the recommendations made recently by the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the DAG.) > > You'll recall that the Council supported GNSO participation in the CWG, in a resolution passed on 8 September. As you may also recall, the CWG's task included making recommendations that would render the MAPO section of the DAG acceptable to the broader community, yet still accomplishing the implementation of Recommendation 6. > > > I understand that there is concern amongst some Council members that continuing a cross-community working group model will in some way diminish the GNSO's role in policy development and/or impinge on Consensus Policies. This concern is part of a wider discussion that to my mind is not implicated by the Rec 6 CWG process or recommendations, in relation to which the much more pressing concern is to ensure that the ICANN Board, staff and community do NOT interpret the Council's silence and inactivity, following the original September motion, as lack of GNSO community support for the CWG's recommendations. > > Thus, I propose a motion, as follows: > > WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SOâ��s) and Advisory Committee (ACâ��s) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law; > > WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010; > > AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the ICANN Board and community; > > RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO; > > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby endorses the CWG recommendations as representing. as far as possible, consensus among the various stakeholders in the ICANN community on effective mechanisms for the implementation of Recommendation 6. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law > Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now > known as the University of > New Hampshire School of Law. Please > note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the > convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University > of New Hampshire School of Law, please > visit law.unh.edu > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

Adding another layer to this is not going to solve the problem. It's a classic management mistake. I don't believe we need a standing committee or other oversight type committee on top of the steering committees. We should review the charter and composition of the existing steering committees and make them what we need them to be to accomplish what we want. We gain nothing by adding another layer and only create additional drain on already strained resources. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion > From: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Date: Tue, November 30, 2010 9:17 pm > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Jeff > Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > > > > > > v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} > o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} > w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} > .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} > > > > > > > > Thanks, Jeff - I for one definitely appreciate the insight from you and did not in any way mean to undermine or downplay the complexity of the task or the hard work that the PDP team and, indeed, the other teams and committees, undertook. The reason why these motions and amendments are being circulated now are, I believe, two-fold; first, for a motion (and thus its context and content) to be discussed at the upcoming Council meeting, it has to be submitted 8 days ahead of that meeting. Secondly, I think that some Councilors (myself included) would like to prevent any further drawing out of the GNSO Improvements process. > > I had tried to craft language that would allow those teams whose work remains ongoing - particularly the PDP work team - to complete their work without worrying about re-chartering or other interference. At the same time, and given that some of the other teams have completed their tasks, I didn't see a reason to extend the PPSC and OSC charters, and certainly not without first knowing what else remains to be done from each committee and team. > > Your idea to separate the two committees may well be the way to go. For now, I'm hoping that the motions will spur discussion and, hopefully, decisive but correct and appropriate steps being taken by the Council in its managerial role. > > I hope this clarifies. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > > > > > > > > From: > "Neuman, Jeff" > > To: > Mary Wong , "council(a)gnso.icann.org" > > Date: > 11/30/2010 10:02 PM > > Subject: > RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion > > All, > I have been watching the e-mails go by and up and am not technically a member of the Council yet until this weekend when I start as an alternate for Caroline Greer and then after next week I become a permanent council member on behalf of the Registries. I would like to ask that before the Council considers a motion grouping the PPSC and OSC together that it takes the time this weekend to learn about what these groups are doing. The OSC and PPSC are in very different positions right now. As you know, the PPSC is divided into two work teams, the Working Group Work Team and the PDP Work Team. The Working Group Work Team has delivered its final report and hopefully by the time the Council meets formally next week, the Working Group Work Team will be ready to deliver that report (as modified by the PPSC) to the Council. > > With respect to the PDP Work Team, there is a lot more work to go. The entire PDP process, from beginning (â��raising an issueâ��) to end (â��Board approval of a PDP, review of the PDP and the PDP process, etc.) is incredibly complex. The PDP Work Team distributed a 150 page initial report prior to Brussels. Very few Councilors that I have asked have read that report. The PDP Work Team has reviewed extensive public comment and is addressing both issues that were left over and other new ones raised. We have a â��draft final reportâ�� we are reviewing now, with the goal of getting that out to the community early in 2011. I cannot stress how hard some of the members of the PDP Work Team are working and how committed they are to completing their task. > With respect to the PPSC, I do not see a need to for the current motions being circulated and am a little concerned that the motions are coming not from the Council Liaisons or even members of the Steering Committees that are on the Council, but rather are coming from those that may not have not been that involved in the process at all. In fact, with all due respect to the Council Liaisons, the PPSC Council Liaison has not attended a PPSC meeting in months (if at all). Come to think of it, who is the Council Liaison to the PPSC? > My personal view (and not as Chair of the PPSC or even as a gTLD Registry rep) is that this motion is too premature. Lets discuss the issues raised at this meeting and worry about a motion (if one is necessary) at the next meeting. > > > As the chair of the PPSC, I am happy to answer any questions you all have. > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:44 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > In view of the additional information supplied by Julie, Liz and Philip, but considering also Wendy's and others' points relating to the workability of the current GNSO processes, I hereby propose the following amendment to Wendy's motion. Fundamentally, I believe it's time, and necessary, for the Council now to assume direct responsibility for reviewing the deliverables from the PPSC and OSC as well as the respective work teams. In this, the Council should be assisted by the Standing Committee that was supposed to have been formed some time ago. > > > > > > Of course, this would not preclude either the Council or the Standing Committee from consulting the teams and committees that drafted and reviewed the original language and processes; it's just that - with the amount of projects we are facing and the concerns already expressed over both the Council's role and the workability of the new GNSO rules and procedures, the seemingly-endless rounds of discussion, interpretation, delegation, referral and redrafting has to stop somewhere and that should be the Council. > > > > > > So, here goes - keeping the original WHEREAS clauses, I suggest the following RESOLVED clauses to the OSC and PPSC charter motion. I hope Wendy will consider it friendly. > > > > > > > "RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, with a view toward final delivery to the Council of any remaining work items so identified by no later than the San Francisco meeting. > > > FURTHER RESOLVED, a Standing Committee to monitor implementation of GNSO Improvements shall be established no later than 19 January 2011. The Standing Committee will work with the Council to review and, if necessary, convene relevant work teams to refine and streamline, the effectiveness of GNSO Improvements on an ongoing basis." > > > > > > Thanks and cheers > > > Mary > > > > > > > > > > > > Mary W S Wong > > > Professor of Law > > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu > > > > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law > Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now > known as the University of > New Hampshire School of Law. Please > note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the > convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University > of New Hampshire School of Law, please > visit law.unh.edu > > >

1 0

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