December 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Meeting with the GAC and ccNSO lunch topics
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 5, 2010

Dec. 5, 2010

Right. And I think we agreed to review Liz's document during lunch to prepare for that discussion so we don't blindside each other during it. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Meeting with the GAC and ccNSO lunch topics > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Sun, December 05, 2010 7:58 am > To: <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > The topic for the joint meeting agreed to by Chris and Heather was CWGs. > > Chuck > > > > > From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 07:24 AM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: [council] Meeting with the GAC and ccNSO lunch topics > > > Hi, > > In preparation for meeting with GAC and lunch with ccNSO, these are some proposed issues to be discussed during these meetings. > > Feel free to suggest changes or other subjects that may be of interest. > > During lunch today we draft the final list. > > Regards > Olga > > > Meeting with the GAC today 17 hs > > > Comments about New gTLDs and DAGV5 > > Recommendation 6 > > Vertical Integration > > Cross SO/AC policy development work > > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-cross-so-ac-policy-discussion-28oct10-en… > > > > ccNSO lunch on Monday Thankns Adrei and Edmond for the suggestions! > > > Short update on Fast track from ccNSO team, how > many applications, how many approved, how many went through IANA > delegation, how many launched IDN ccTLDs. > > There will be a big > sessions run by ccNSO during this ICANN meeting, but for GNSO this will be interesting. This is a direct competition > for unborn yet gTLDs. > Edmonâ��s IRD presentation â�� on how it will be (should, must, if?) applied to ccTLD world. Andrei can reference examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Â >

3 2

GAC and ccNSO questions and topics
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 5, 2010

Dec. 5, 2010

Hi, thanks for the comments on how to organize discussion with GAC and with ccNSO. Stéphane and myself will exchange emails with Heather and Chris in order to include other additional topics. So this are the questions we agreed to include, thanks Kristina for sending it so quickly and Mary for the additional suggestion. Also I am including additional topics. Regards Olga *GAC questions * In relation with Cross Community Working Groups In what capacities, and are there any limitations to participation by the GAC and individual GAC representatives in cross-community working groups? If there are limitations, what are they? What subjects are suitable or eligible for cross-community WGs (CWGs)? What should the role of the SOs and ACs be in reviewing/approving a CWG report? * Additional points for discussion* After the intensive and successful experience of group collaborations on questions of particular interest to the GAC, namely Rec. 6/former MAPO and JAS/applicant support. a) What are the GAC views about the outputs of these groups, and how well they speak to concerns GAC has raised in the past. b) How those outputs should be dealt with going forward? * For the ccNSO* In relation with Cross Community Working Groups In what capacities, and are there any limitations to participation by the GAC and individual GAC representatives in cross-community working groups? If there are limitations, what are they? What subjects are suitable or eligible for cross-community WGs (CWGs)? What should the role of the SOs and ACs be in reviewing/approving a CWG report? * Additional points for discussion* Short update on Fast track from ccNSO team, how many applications, how many approved, how many went through IANA delegation, how many launched IDN ccTLDs. There will be a big sessions run by ccNSO during this ICANN meeting, but for GNSO this will be interesting. This is a direct competition for unborn yet gTLDs. Edmon’s IRD presentation – on how it will be (should, must, if?) applied to ccTLD world. Andrei can reference examples. 2010/12/5 Rosette, Kristina <krosette(a)cov.com> > Proposed questions: Are there any limitations to participation by the > GAC and individual GAC representatives in cross-community working groups? > If so, what are they? > > Any changes? > >

1 0

GAC question
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 5, 2010

Dec. 5, 2010

Proposed questions: Are there any limitations to participation by the GAC and individual GAC representatives in cross-community working groups? If so, what are they? Any changes?

2 1

Resending the draft discussion paper on joint WGs
by Liz Gasster Dec. 5, 2010

Dec. 5, 2010

All, As requested today. This was first distributed to the Council on 27 October. Thanks, Liz

1 0

Meeting with the GAC and ccNSO lunch topics
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 5, 2010

Dec. 5, 2010

Hi, In preparation for meeting with GAC and lunch with ccNSO, these are some proposed issues to be discussed during these meetings. Feel free to suggest changes or other subjects that may be of interest. During lunch today we draft the final list. Regards Olga *Meeting with the GAC today 17 hs* Comments about New gTLDs and DAGV5 Recommendation 6 Vertical Integration Cross SO/AC policy development work http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-cross-so-ac-policy-discussion-28oct10-en… * ccNSO lunch on Monday * Thankns Adrei and Edmond for the suggestions! Short update on Fast track from ccNSO team, how many applications, how many approved, how many went through IANA delegation, how many launched IDN ccTLDs. There will be a big sessions run by ccNSO during this ICANN meeting, but for GNSO this will be interesting. This is a direct competition for unborn yet gTLDs. Edmon’s IRD presentation – on how it will be (should, must, if?) applied to ccTLD world. Andrei can reference examples.

2 2

REMINDER: OSC Meeting in Cartagena, 05 December
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 5, 2010

Dec. 5, 2010

All, This is a reminder that the meeting of the OSC will be held tomorrow, 05 December, from 9:00 to 10:00 am ( (1400 UTC/0900 EST/0600 PST) in the Barahona 2 room. See the following site for remote access details: http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15359. The agenda is provided below. I have attached the relevant documents for discussion, including a redlined version of the SOI procedures with changes suggested by Stephane Van Gelder, Bill Drake, and Mary Wong. I also will provide hard copy versions of the documents for your reference tomorrow. Best regards, Julie Agenda of the Operations Steering Committee Meeting Cartagena, Colombia 05 December 2010 1. GNSO Council Operations Team (GCOT) outstanding items --Section 5 DOI and SOI follow-up to council vote 2. Constituency Stakeholder Group (CSG) outstanding items --Global outreach program recommendations 3. GNSO Council Operating Procedures Elections, Absentee Voting, and Abstentions (time permitting) --Section 2.2 Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chair --Section 4.4 and 4.5 Absentee Voting and Abstentions

3 2

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

Updates from JIG
by Edmon Chung Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

Hi Everyone, This is a quick update for everyone on the work at the JIG in my last week on the council :-) And a heads up for a Final report which is expected to be submitted to the council possibly as soon as next month. Summarizing the work done on the 3 issues of common interest identified: 1. Single Character IDN TLD: - Initial Report completed: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf - Public Comment period completed: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm - Staff summary on comments completed: http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-initial-report/pdfaul7JXcqaa.pdf - Draft Final Report published for public comments: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm - Next steps: - Consideration of Public Comments - Finalization of Final Report - Submit the Final Report to the GNSO (and ccNSO) councils - Council to consider next steps (i.e. to further resolve on submitting the report to Board/Staff) 2. IDN TLD Variant - Initial Report (version 0.3) being drafted: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/jig/attachments/joint_ccnso_gnso_idn_w… - Work suspended in consideration of Staff work plan (as per the Board resolution on October 18: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.5) - Work to be restarted after update from Staff regarding the work plan to be discussed here in Cartagena 3. Universal acceptance of IDN TLDs - Work to be started after publishing Initial Report on IDN TLD Variant (#2) So in summary, I think the Final Report may reach the Council for further actions to be taken in Jan 2011. The hope of course at that time would be for the council to resolve to send the report on to Board and Staff for further action on the subject and to incorporate the recommendations. With that I also invite you all to the 2 JIG sessions in the week: - Monday (Dec 6) Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG public reporting session) -- 1700-1800 (Barahona 2) - Thursday (Dec 9) Variant TLD Management (JIG WG discussion) -- 0800-0900 (Barahona 1) Edmon

2 1

Role of the Council discussion
by Stéphane Van Gelder Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

Thanks for some very good discussion on the role of the Council. As a starting point for continuing that discussion on this list, these are the points we may wish to look at: Should we have this session again at next ICANN meeting? Does Council support the idea of the leaders talking to group chairs? How to improve the communication between the groups - standing number for informal group calls. Thanks, Stéphane

8 13

RE: [council] Role of the Council discussion
by Rosemary Sinclair Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

Hi all, Should we have this session again at next ICANN meeting? Yes - it is valuable to reflect on our role especially as we are developing clarity around the role Does Council support the idea of the leaders talking to group chairs? YES!! How to improve the communication between the groups - standing number for informal group calls. - this would be very helpful for increasing the ease of communications Rosemary ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sun 5/12/2010 5:30 AM To: HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Role of the Council discussion Thanks Debbie and Wolf. Stéphane Le 4 déc. 2010 à 18:38, <HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org> a écrit : > I believe these are all important points for future discussion. > Debbie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:17 PM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: [council] Role of the Council discussion > > > Thanks for some very good discussion on the role of the Council. > > As a starting point for continuing that discussion on this list, these are the points we may wish to look at: > > Should we have this session again at next ICANN meeting? > Does Council support the idea of the leaders talking to group chairs? > How to improve the communication between the groups - standing number for informal group calls. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane

3 3