December 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: URGENT REMINDER AGM information
by Mike Rodenbaugh Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

I was asked by the GNSO Secretariat to prepare a short "post-mortem" on my Council terms, which I created a couple weeks ago and thought I would forward now. It truly has been a pleasure to work with you all, and I look forward to many more years of participation in the ICANN community. My Council term began in Fall, 2006, just as the new gTLD Task Force was beginning its work in earnest. As Yahoo!'s representative to ICANN, our mission was to eliminate domain tasting, and lead efforts to increase awareness about cybersquatting and cybersecurity problems (phishing, etc.) in the DNS. I chaired the Working Group which devised Consensus Policy that has virtually eliminated domain tasting, which in turn has dramatically lowered the instance of new cybersquatting and other related problems since then. With help from many others in the community, we also have succeeded in raising awareness significantly among contract parties and the broader ICANN community respecting cybersquatting and cybersecurity problems, and the contract parties' responsibility to help address those abuses of their systems. I have spread this message through more than a dozen working groups, including various new TLD groups, Domain Tasting, Fast Flux, Registration Abuse Policies, RAA Amendments and others. There is much more work to do in this regard, but there has been significant progress over the past four years. Serving on Council has been a tremendous personal growth and educational experience, so I want to thank you, the entire policy staff at ICANN, Chuck and many others who have been so helpful to me over the years. I appreciate that I have made dozens of friends and met hundreds of colleagues through my work at ICANN, and that truly has been the best part of the experience. I look forward to continuing my involvement in ICANN policy development matters, in different capacities, as the DNS rapidly expands in the future. Kind regards, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:39 AM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Cc: Glen Subject: URGENT REMINDER AGM information -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: vendredi 29 octobre 2010 16:29 To: 'icann(a)rodenbaugh.com' Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AGM information Dear Mike, It is customary at the Annual general Meeting that the Board Chair pays a short tribute to parting Council members and in order to have accurate information, would you please be so kind as to provide a very short resumé of your term on the Council, date you joined and anything else that should be highlighted. If you could please let me have this information by no later than 2 November, it would be most appreciated. Thank you so much, and my apologies for giving you an extra task! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[FWD: RE: [council] Attendence today...]
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

I stand corrected. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Attendence today... > From: XXXX(a)XXXXX.XXX > Date: Wed, December 08, 2010 4:34 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > > Mike and I got 75 about 15 minutes in > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Attendence today... > From: "Tim Ruiz" > Date: Wed, December 08, 2010 2:31 pm > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > > ... looks like it has averaged about 35-40 or so, peaked around 60, not > counting ourselves. > > > Tim > > > > >

1 0

Attendence today...
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

... looks like it has averaged about 35-40 or so, peaked around 60, not counting ourselves. Tim

1 0

RE: [council] RAA motion
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Mary, The redline is not showing up for us. Can u please sned a clean copy? Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RAA motion > From: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Date: Wed, December 08, 2010 3:25 pm > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Hello, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to Kristina's RAA motion. Essentially, it splits the original motion into 2 separate motions; one on the Registrant Rights Charter, and the other regarding the priority topics and Process A. > > With apologies in advance for a very lengthy amendment, > 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

RAA motion
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Hello, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to Kristina's RAA motion. Essentially, it splits the original motion into 2 separate motions; one on the Registrant Rights Charter, and the other regarding the priority topics and Process A. With apologies in advance for a very lengthy amendment, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 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

Amended Rec 6 motion
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

As discussed with some of you, here will be the amended version of the Rec 6 motion to be voted on: WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO’s) and Advisory Committee (AC’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 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, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group and Constituency provide feedback as soon as possible on the CWG's recommendations to the Council. Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 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

Motion for JAS WG charter extension
by Stéphane Van Gelder Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Rafik, Bill, I am unsure if you answered this or not so I apologize if this is a repost. Did you consider this as a FA? Thanks, Stéphane >> >> Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 12:41 >> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension >> >> Rafik/Bill, >> Do you consider this amendment friendly? >> Chuck >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de >> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:08 AM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension >> All, >> I'd like to amend the "Motion for JAS WG charter extension" as follows: >> Remove "Resolved 1. c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance;" >> Rationale: >> First, I'm convinced the community and ICANN have to be prepared how to manage any potential new gTLD auction profit. >> As usual in case profit is available one can expect many interested community groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new applicants are one group of it. In addition parts of the overall ICANN program could also profit from that fund (e.g. outreach program, DNS security etc.). >> So my reservations to this topic being covered by the JAS group only are: >> - it is a too large area for the JAS and would go far beyond their originally intended scope >> - there are lots of more urgent tasks for this WG as laid down in the new draft charter. Handling the potential auction profit is of lower priority on the timescale . >> - as per definition the JAS view is applicant oriented that would cause an imbalance >> As I pointed out in former e-mails the JAS could express the new applicants' general interest in taking part in the distribution of the potential auction profit. >> >> I suggest to initiate discussion on council level how to cover this topic separately and appropriately. >> >> I'm in agreement with all other items in the charter and would be happy if the amendment could be accepted as friendly . >> Save travels to Cartagena >> Wolf-Ulrich >> Von: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010 20:58 >> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich >> Betreff: regarding your amendment >> >> Hi Wolf-Ulrich, >> regarding your comment last time about JAS motion, I would like to know what are the reasons for asking to remove the 1.c . I think that we should find a better and constructive compromise.what do you think? >> Regards >> Rafik >

6 7

Friendly amendment to OSC/PPSC motion
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Dear colleagues, Wendy and I will withdraw our alternative motion on the OSC & PPSC charters, on the understanding that Chuck (as original proposer) and Jeff (as seconder of Chuck's original motion) accept the following language as a friendly amendment to Chuck's original motion: [skipping the WHEREAS clauses] 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, including expected deadlines for final delivery. RESOLVED FURTHER, a drafting team shall be established no later than 19 January 2011, to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 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

FW: URGENT: update from the CSG side about progression toward election process for V.Chair/House
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: Marilyn Cade Dear ICANN GNSO Secretariat/Glen: Update on the progression of an agreed process for V.Chair election/Non Contracted Party House - update from the CSG The leadership and their members have continued to work on a mutually agreed to process for this election. Unfortunately, time factors and the busy schedules have not allowed the conclusion of a mutually agreed to process. However, the CSG leadership is optimistic that a process can be agreed to, and thus the election can be resolved soon. We will also of course be in close communications with our sister SG and with the NCA in our House, Olga Cavalli, and are of course forwarding this communication. Please know that efforts continue to find time to address this. I will add on a personal note that busy schedules have overtaken us in some instances, but that we are all working toward a solution. My apologies for the delay. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair, CSG alternate from BC, and on behalf of the CSG leadership

1 0

Rec 6 motion: possible amendment
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Hello again, So as not to overly belabor the point or cause your Inboxes to overflow, would reformulating the motion along the following lines render it acceptable to those who were inclined to vote against it? Basically I added a Whereas clause and rewrote the problematic "endorsed" clause in the Resolved section: "WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committee (ACs) 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; WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community; AND WHEREAS, the role of the Council is to manage the cross-community process on behalf of the GNSO community and the Council notes that the CWG's implementation proposals have been produced in accordance with the group's Terms of Reference; 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, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group provide feedback as soon as possible to the CWG, in order to resolve outstanding questions regarding implementation of Recommendation 6 in a judicious manner, considering in particular those recommendations that received Full Consensus in the CWG. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 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

3 2

Revised GNSO Council motions for Wednesday 8 December
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Dear Council members, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting today, please review the motions posted on the Wiki pages: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions and also copied below. Please check the wording and motion 3 needs a seconder, or perhaps I have missed the second.. If so please resend your second for motions 3. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 1 a Amendment by Wolf Ulrich Knoben to the motion made by Rafik Dammak and seconded by Bill Drake for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN Board resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items. This paragraph has been removed in the amended version: c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance; Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states: the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support. Resolved: 1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives: a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement. b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered; c) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship. d) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship. e) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties. f) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding g) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated. i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages. 2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work. 1 b. Motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN Board resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items. Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Bill Drake With amendments approved in the 18 November Council meeting and before in italics: Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states: the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support. Resolved: 1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives: a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement. b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered; c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance; d) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship. e) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship. f) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties. g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated. i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages. 2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work. 2. Motion to Terminate The Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars. Made by: Stéphane van Gelder Seconded by: 1. Terry Davis 2. Andrei Kolesnikov Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas, the VI Working Group has published its Interim Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 9 November 2010, describing the results of the first phase of its deliberations; Whereas, the Working Group is unable to reach a consensus on any recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider with regard to vertical integration and cross-ownership between Registrars and Registries in time for the first round of new gTLD applications (Phase I); Whereas, in the absence of guidance from the GNSO Council, the ICANN Board has voted to allow new gTLD registries to own registrars, and has opted not to create new rules prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating new gTLD registries; With the publication of the Interim Report, the VI Working Group has suspended its activities pending further instructions from the GNSO Council; and Whereas, in light of these recent developments, the GNSO Council desires to terminate the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recognizes that, in light of these recent developments, there is no longer a need or desire to pursue further policy development activities with respect to this issue; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council formally ends the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the VI PDP Working Group is hereby disbanded. The GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP Working group in producing the Interim Report, and sincerely thanks the Co-Chairs, Mike O'Connor and Roberto Gaetano, for their leadership in this PDP. 3. Proposed motion on 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 draft AGB.) Made by: Mary Wong Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC'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. 4. Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Motion made by: Kristina Rosette Seconded by: Mike Rodenbaugh 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. 5. MOTION APPROVING THE DRAFT CHARTER OF THE JOINT DNS SECURITY AND STABILITY ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (DSSA-WG) Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Jaime Wagner 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. 6. Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters. Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Jeff Neuman 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-implemen…; 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. 7. Alternate Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters. Made by: Wendy Seltzer Seconded by: Rafik Dammak as amended by Mary Wong 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-implemen…; 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 OSC and PPSC charters expire at the Cartagena meeting; 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Berard SOI revised as per Chuck Gomes
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: John Berard John Berard/Statement of Interest/December 2010 I am the founder of a communications consultancy called Credible Context and based in San Francisco, CA, USA. The firm is the culmination of a 35-year career in public relations at agencies large and small in New York, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. My clients are not defined by industry but by market need. I specialize in marketing communications that helps companies renew, reshape and re-emerge in existing and adjacent markets. My practice is rooted in the notion that in a media environment that is immediate, ubiquitous and unforgiving, effective communications must be linked to who you are. That is the credible context. In the past 12 months, as part of my broader portfolio of clients, I have worked with registrars (as part of my work with Momentous, parent company to multiple registrars and Pool.com<http://Pool.com>), registries (Neustar) and globally branded consumer and business-to-business companies for whom the web is either an essential platform or represents their only commercial presence. That is the current extent of my work, especially as it relates to ICANN, registries or registrars. I view myself, first-and-foremost, as a registrant and a business person. My small (less than 10 names) portfolio of domain names is registered through GoDaddy.com<http://godaddy.com/>. With regard to participation in communities other than ICANN, I am a member of the board of the Market Street Railway, the support organization for the vintage streetcars in San Francisco and a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

1 0

Board Data and Consumer Protection Working Group Report on Recommendations (7 December 2010)
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Hello All, The report of the Board's Data and Consumer Protection Working Group is now available on the ICANN website, following its first and only official meeting on Friday afternoon 3 Dec 2010. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/consumer-protection/report-on-recomme ndations-07dec10-en.htm See below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Data and Consumer Protection Working Group Report on Recommendations 7 December 2010 On 5 August 2010 the Board asked the Board Governance Committee to assist in the formation of a Board Data and Consumer Protection Working Group (DCP-WG) to identify issues relating to the use of registry data and where registrant protection might be further explored or proposed policies might be introduced. The DCP-WG was formally established on 25 September 2010 to address data and consumer protection issues. The DCP-WG provides this report on its conclusions and recommendations. The report will be provided to the Board for consideration at its 10 December 2010 meeting in Cartagena, Colombia. DCP-WG Conclusions and Recommendations Searchable Whois, Referred to the DCP-WG on 25 September 2010: Searchable Whois: Refer to the Board Data Consumer Protection Working Group to study issues and provide information to the Board relating to access and privacy to develop recommendations for possible inclusion in the forthcoming version of the applicant guidebook. DCP-WG Response: The DCP-WG advises the Board that making searchable whois mandatory is a policy matter that would have to be referred to the GNSO, but we accept it being optional as proposed in current version of the Applicant Guidebook. We flag that there are consumer and data protection issues that could be raised through a searchable whois system. DCP-WG Charter Task 1: Fact Finding: Establishing what consumer protections associated with the collection and use of domain-name related data are currently planned to be included in the proposed new gTLD Registry contract. DCP-WG Response: Under the proposed Registry Operator Code of Conduct, at Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement in the current version of the Applicant Guidebook, there are consumer-protection provisions relating to limitations on the use of domain-name related data. These are currently subject to public comment. DCP-WG Charter Task 2: Fact Finding: Reviewing the status of work on determining the domain-name related data collected and the uses to which it is put. DCP-WG Response: The DCP-WG has identified that the work mandated by the Board in approving the Council Report to the Board, Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries (PDP Feb 06) - 2 November 2007, Recommendation 5* has not been done. The DCP-WG recommends that this work be implemented now by staff. Continuation or Replacement of DCP-WG: DCP-WG recommends to the Board that the WG be thanked for its work and dissolved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- * Recommendation 5 states: "In order to determine whether there is a need for a new consensus policy on the collection and use of registry data, including traffic data, for purposes other than which is was collected, there is first a need for a properly targeted study by an independent third party on the data collected and the uses to which it is put."

1 0

FW: NEWLY ELECTED OFFICERS, REGISTRIES STAKEHOLDER GROUP
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

FYI Forwarded From: Registries Stakeholder Group Please be advised that the election of Officers of the Registries Stakeholder Group was held at the meeting today, Tuesday, 7 December, in Cartagena. I am pleased to share the outcome of the vote as follows: Chair: David Maher Alternate Chair: Keith Drazek Treasurer: Ken Stubbs Their term is for two years, and commences with the close of the 2010 ICANN meeting in Cartagena. Best regards, Cherie 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: DRAFT/Berard SOI
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

Forwarded From: John Berard John Berard/Statement of Interest/December 2010 I am the founder of a communications consultancy called Credible Context and based in San Francisco, CA, USA. The firm is the culmination of a 35-year career in public relations at agencies large and small in New York, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. My clients are not defined by industry but by market need. I specialize in marketing communications that helps companies renew, reshape and re-emerge in existing and adjacent markets. My practice is rooted in the notion that in a media environment that is immediate, ubiquitous and unforgiving, effective communications must be linked to who you are. That is the credible context. In the past 12 months, as part of my broader portfolio of clients, I have worked with registrars, registries and globally branded consumer and business-to-business companies for whom the web is either an essential platform or represents their only commercial presence. That is the current extent of my work, especially as it relates to ICANN, registries or registrars. I view myself, first-and-foremost, as a registrant and a business person. My small (less than 10 names) portfolio of domain names is registered through GoDaddy.com<http://GoDaddy.com>. With regard to participation in communities other than ICANN, I am a member of the board of the Market Street Railway, the support organization for the vintage streetcars in San Francisco and a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals. 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: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#27]
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mardi 7 décembre 2010 22:48 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#27] Name of Officer: * Steve DelBianco Officer Email Address: * sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, December 7, 2010 GNSO Organization: * Business Constituency Officer Position or Title: * vice chair for policy coordination Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Councilor Zahid Jamil has not yet confirmed that he will be able to join the 8-Dec-2010 Council call, which occurs at an unworkable hour at his present location. If Zahid is actually able to join the call, we would withdraw the Temporary Alternate remedy for this meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All matters before Council on 8-Dec-2010 Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, December 10, 2010 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Jon Berard Temporary Alternate Email Address: * john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>

1 0

GNSO Council motions for Wednesday 8 December
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

Dear Council members, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting tomorrow afternoon, please review the motions posted on the Wiki pages: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions and also copied below. Please check the wording and there are some that need seconds, or perhaps I have missed the seconds. If so please resend your second for motions 3 and 7. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN Board resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items. Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Bill Drake With amendments approved in the 18 November Council meeting and before in italics: Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states: the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support. Resolved: 1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives: a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement. b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered; c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance; d) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship. e) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship. f) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties. g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated. i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages. 2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work. 2. Motion to Terminate The Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars. Made by: Stéphane van Gelder Seconded by: 1. Terry Davis 2. Andrei Kolesnikov Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas, the VI Working Group has published its Interim Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 9 November 2010, describing the results of the first phase of its deliberations; Whereas, the Working Group is unable to reach a consensus on any recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider with regard to vertical integration and cross-ownership between Registrars and Registries in time for the first round of new gTLD applications (Phase I); Whereas, in the absence of guidance from the GNSO Council, the ICANN Board has voted to allow new gTLD registries to own registrars, and has opted not to create new rules prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating new gTLD registries; With the publication of the Interim Report, the VI Working Group has suspended its activities pending further instructions from the GNSO Council; and Whereas, in light of these recent developments, the GNSO Council desires to terminate the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recognizes that, in light of these recent developments, there is no longer a need or desire to pursue further policy development activities with respect to this issue; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council formally ends the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the VI PDP Working Group is hereby disbanded. The GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP Working group in producing the Interim Report, and sincerely thanks the Co-Chairs, Mike O'Connor and Roberto Gaetano, for their leadership in this PDP. 3. Proposed motion on 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 draft AGB.) Made by: Mary Wong Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC'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. 4. Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Motion made by: Kristina Rosette Seconded by: Mike Rodenbaugh 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. 5. MOTION APPROVING THE DRAFT CHARTER OF THE JOINT DNS SECURITY AND STABILITY ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (DSSA-WG) Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Jaime Wagner 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. 6. Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters. Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Jeff Neuman 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-implemen…; 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. 7. Alternate Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters. Made by Wendy Seltzer: seconded by: 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-implemen…; 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 OSC and PPSC charters expire at the Cartagena meeting; RESOLVED the Council acknowledges the hard work of those work teams and thanks them for providing any final reports they wish to offer. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Development of Criteria for Initiating New Projects
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

Hi, this is a summary of the ideas exchanged last Saturday about Development of Criteria for Initiating New Projects. At the end of the session the following council members agreed to keep on talking about this: Stephane Jaime Wolf Tim Rosemary Olga Comments and other ideas are welcome. Regards Olga *Development of Criteria for Initiating New Projects* We should have one yearly strategy planning session focusing on what we can do with our resources. Before starting each project some key questions should be done in order to have a sense of general priority level. Why is this a priority project? Do we have the resources? Which is the main driver of the project? How do we tell that we are full? How do we tell there are no resources? Should we stop a pdp? This would need careful thought. More community resources: it is possible to recruit more people. Use of a simple model and outcomes could be complemented by recommendations done by council leaders. The decision should be made by the leadership of the council. Council should evaluate where do the new projects fit in and agree on some, in a case by case basis. There could be a methodology that includes points (European Parliament) There could be voting thresholds to iniciate a project.

2 1

GNSO Council Wrap-Up Meeting Agenda - Cartagena 12:30-13:30
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

GNSO Council Wrap-Up Meeting - Cartagena 9 December 2010, 12:30 COT 17:30 UTC Reference to ICANN Schedule http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15377 Virtual Meeting Room http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ctg39-barahona1 Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Wrap-Up Meeting in Cartagena, 9 December 2010. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_9_december_2010 Note: No actions requiring GNSO Council votes will occur in this meeting. The purpose will be to: 1) continue discussion on any items for which there was insufficient time in the Open Council meeting on 8 December; 2) plan and organize next steps for any action items from the 8 December meeting; and 3) evaluate the success of the GNSO meetings in Cartagena and discuss areas for improvement. 12:30 COT Cartagena 17:30 UTC, 09:30 PST, 12:30 EST, 14:30 Buenos Aires, 18:30 Paris, 22:30 Karachi, 9 December 2010 01:30 Beijing, 02:30 Tokyo Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Review/amend agenda Item 2: GNSO Process decision making (15 minutes) a. Action items from Open Council meeting b. Next steps? Item 3: Role of the Council (15 minutes) a. Questions arising from weekend session * 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 (proposal: standing number for informal group calls)? * How Council may deal with reports, and the broader question of Council freedom to deliberate and act? b. Next steps? Item 4: New GNSO website (5 minutes) a. Suggested changes to prototype site presented during weekend sessions b. Timeline for launch of website Item 5: Meeting format (10 minutes) a. Impressions from the Cartagena meeting * Any proposed changes to our schedule? * Should the informal GNSO Council dinner be maintained? * Impressions from the Sunday formal session with the Board? Item 6: Y2011 meetings (10 minutes) a. Frequency of meetings * Keep current format of one meeting every 3 weeks or change to one meeting every 4 weeks? b. Identify any possible clashes in 2011. c. Volunteers to work on agenda for next Open Council meeting (in SF)? Item 7: Council leaders election procedures (10 minutes) a. Evaluation of current election procedures: good as-is or need change? b. Next steps? Item 8: Cross AC-SO working groups (15 minutes) a. Discussion on Council's position with regards to joint SO/AC WGs Item 9: Any other business (5 minutes) a. Best practices, policy work, understanding the way PDPs work. b. Policy staff briefing to Council on possible outcomes of RAP and PEDNR groups. Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 17:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 09:30 Cartagena, Columbia (COT) UTC-5+0DST 12:30 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 12:30 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 14:30 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 1530 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 17:30 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:30 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:30 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:30 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5+0DST 22:30 Hong Kong, Beijing China (HKT) UTC+8+0DST 01:30 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 02:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 04:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

Reminder: GNSO Council Public Meeting - Cartagena 8 December 14:00 COT, 19:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

GNSO Council Public Meeting - Cartagena 8 December 2010, 14:00 COT (19:00 UTC) Reference to ICANN Schedule http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15379 Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Cartagena, 8 December 2010. Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council Workspace at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_8_december_2010 As can be seen below, in addition to the Open Microphone at the end of the agenda, as possible throughout the meeting time will be allowed for audience participation. Please be aware that audience opportunities to comment will depend on available time. Meeting Times Coordinated Universal Time:19:00 UTC - see below for local times (11:00 Los Angeles,14:00 Cartagena 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 London, 20:00 Brussels 9 December 2010 00:00 Karachi, 04:00 Tokyo, 06:00 Melbourne This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. (Insert links to meeting audio-cast and Adobe connect as applicable.) 1. Administrative Matters (10 minutes) a. Roll call of Council members, noting alternates and proxies (Glen) b. Polling for Disclosures of Interest i. Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in this meeting. ii. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: "Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue." iii. The main issues for this meeting are: * GNSO Project Decision Making * Elections of Council Chair & Vice Chairs * New gTLD Applicant Guidebook * Joint New gTLD Applicant Support Recommendations * Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement * Joint IDN Working Group Recommendations re. New Top Level Domains * Recommendations re. Registration Abuse Policies * Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group Charter * Whois & Internationalized Registration Data * GNSO Improvements c. Update any statements of interest Olga Cavalli http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/cavalli-soi-28nov10-en.htm Adrian Kinderis http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/kinderis-soi-04dec10-en.htm d. Review/amend agenda e. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: i. 18 November 2010 meeting minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10104.html ii. Scheduled for approval on 3 December 2010 2. GNSO Project Decision Making (15 Minutes) a. Overview of weekend working session (Olga Cavalli) b. Next steps 3. Elections of Council Chair & Vice Chairs (25 minutes) a. Results of vice chair elections by houses (Glen de Saint Géry) i. Non- contracted Party House ii. Contracted Party House - Jeff Neuman b. Chair election i. Results (Glen de Saint Géry) ii. Next steps * If the leading candidate in the second ballot did not receive at least 60% of the votes of each house, then a new nominating period will be initiated no sooner than 30 days. c. Assignment of Nominating Committee Appointees (NCAs) i. Non-Contracted Party House: Olga Cavalli ii. Contracted Party House: Andrei Kolesnikov iii. Non-voting position: Carlos Dionisio Aguirre d. Election procedures i. Comments from Councilors ii. Status of OSC review of procedures * Need to define the chair and vice chair terms in the GNSO Operating Procedures * Note that the OSC charter ends in Cartagena pending the results of motions in agenda item 10 below. iii. Audience input 4. New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (25 minutes) a. Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) i. Refer to JAS WG recommendations: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm ii. Refer to Motion to Extend the WG as amended and deferred in the 18 November Council meeting: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions iii. Reading of the motion (Bill Drake) iv. Discussion * Council * Audience v. Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed. b. Vertical Integration Policy Development Working Group (VI PDP WG) i. Refer to VI PDP WG Interim Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-interim-report-phase-i… ii. Refer to motion deferred from 18 November Council meeting: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions * Reading of the motion (Stéphane Van Gelder) * Discussion - Council - Audience * Vote (Note that absentee voting does not apply.) c. Recommendation 6 Community Working Group (Rec6 CWG) Report i. Status of Rec6 CWG recommendations in the latest version of the New gTLD Guidebook (Margie Milam) ii.. Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions * Reading of the motion (Mary Wong) * Discussion - Council - Audience * Vote (Note that absentee voting does not apply.) 5. Joint IDN Working Group (JIG) Recommendations re. New Top Level Domains (15 minutes) a. Refer to JIG working space: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg.htm b. JIG WG Status Report (Edmon Chung) http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-22nov10-en.pdf c. Next steps d. Discussion * Council * Audience 6. Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (20 minutes) a. Refer to public comment site posted on 22 November with comments due by 21 January: Proposed Changes to Enhance ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Evaluation Process at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov10-en.htm. b. Overview (Margie Milam) http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/final-report-raa-improvements-28oct10-… i. Weekend GNSO working session ii. Current status iii. Next steps c. Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions i. Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) ii. Discussion * Council * Audience iii. Vote (Note that absentee voting does not apply.) 7. Recommendations re. Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) (25 minutes) a. Refer to Letter from the RAP Implementation Drafting Team (IDT): http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf b. Thanks to the RAP IDT members and co-chairs Mikey O'Connor & Greg Aaron. c. Brief overview of weekend GNSO working session (Marika) d. Discussion questions i. How and when should the GNSO handle RAP IDT recommendations that: * Had unanimous consensus? * Were identified as low hanging fruit? * Did not have unanimous consensus? ii. Should we develop an overall action plan in response to the RAP IDT proposed approach? e. Discussion * Council * Audience f. Next steps? 8. Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group Charter (20 minutes) a. Refer to draft charter: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf b. Overview of draft charter (Julie Hedlund) c. Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions i. Reading of the motion (Chuck Gomes) ii. Discussion * Council * Audience iii. Vote (Note that absentee voting does not apply.) d. Next steps 9. Whois & Internationalized Registration Data (20 minutes) a. Whois Studies i. Status Report (Liz Gasster) ii. Council Discussion b. Internationalized Registration Data Working Group i. Refer to WG work space: https://st.icann.org/int-reg-data-wg/index.cgi?internationalized_registrati… ii. Status Report (Edmon Chung or Steve Sheng) iii. Council Discussion c. Audience Input 10. GNSO Improvements (25 minutes) a. Operations Steering Committee Report (Philip Sheppard) b. Policy Process Steering Committee Report (Jeff Neuman) c. Staff Report (Rob Hoggarth) i. Constituency & Stakeholder Group Charters ii. GNSO Website iii. Toolkit of Services for Constituencies & SGs iv. Other? d. Pending new constituency presentations i. Cybercafe Ecosystem Constituency ii. Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency e. Discussion * Council * Audience f. Refer to motion to extend PPSC & OSC charters: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions i. Reading of the motion (Chuck Gomes) ii. Council Discussion iii. Vote (Note that absentee voting does not apply.) g. Refer to motion to end the PPSC & OSC: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions i. Reading of the motion (Wendy Seltzer) ii. Council Discussion iii. Vote (Note that absentee voting does not apply.) d. Discussion * Council * Audience 11. Recognition & thanks for outgoing Councilors (10 minutes) a. Non-Contracted Party House i. Commercial Stakeholder Group * Mike Rodenbaugh (Commercial Business Users Constituency) b. Contracted Party House i. Nominating Committee Appointee * Terry Davis ii. Registries Stakeholder Group * Edmon Chung * Caroline Greer * Chuck Gomes 12. Recognition & thanks for ICANN Staff support in 2010 (10 minutes) a. Administrative Support * Glen de Saint Géry * Gisella Gruber-White b. Direct GNSO Policy Support * David Olive * Liz Gasster * Rob Hoggarth * Marika Konings * Karla Valente * Julie Hedlund * Margie Milam * Denise Michel * Steve Sheng * Ken Bour c. Dozens of other staff members from the ICANN executive team to liaisons to other SO and AC support personnel have also provided support to the GNSO. 13. Welcome to New Councilors (5 minutes) a. Non-Contracted Party House ii. Commercial Stakeholder Group * John Berard (Commercial Business Users Constituency) b. Contracted Party House iii. Nominating Committee Appointee * Carlos Dionisio Aguirre iv. Registries Stakeholder Group * Ching Chiao * Jeff Neuman * TBD 14. Other Business (5 minutes) 15. Open Microphone (15 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 19:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 11:00 Cartagena, Columbia (COT) UTC-5+0DST 14:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 14:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 16:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 17:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 19:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 19:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5+0DST 00:00 next day Hong Kong, China (HKT) UTC+8+0DST 03:00 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 04:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 06:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

The updated Pending Projects List is posted
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

Dear Councillors, The updated Pending Projects List is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Please review this and provide comments and questions to the mailing list in preparation for the Council meeting on 8 December 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

AG changes reflecting council resolution 20100715-1
by Edmon Chung Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

Hi Everyone, Finally had a chance to look through the proposed final AG... I refer to our resolution in June and July about Confusingly similar TLD strings and our request for the AG to be updated regarding the issue: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201006 (20100610-1) and http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201007 (20100715-1) It seems to me (based on the redline version) that nothing to that effect seems to have been put in place, and the String Similarity review still says: An application that fails the String Similarity review due to similarity to an existing TLD will not pass the Initial Evaluation, and no further reviews will be available. I wonder if anyone did find the changes relevant to our resolution... and whether staff can help explain what actions were taken with regards to the above resolutions... Edmon

3 3

Motions on OSC/PPSC
by Neuman, Jeff Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

Can someone please send me the latest motions (or point the wiki) on the PPSC/OSC. We are discussing it this morning in the RySG and I am not sure where we stand. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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.

3 2

Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion
by Mary Wong Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

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 LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 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

5 12

Re: [council] GNSO Council chair results for second round - all the votes have been received
by Caroline Greer Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

Congratulations Stéphane! Kind regards ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Mon Dec 06 22:23:33 2010 Subject: [council] GNSO Council chair results for second round - all the votes have been received Dear Council Members, Attached please find the results of the second round of voting for the GNSO Council Election for Chair. All votes have now been received. Please check your vote in one of the two attached files, one has the results of the Contracted Party House, and one has the results of the Non-Contracted Party House, and if it is not properly registered, please let me know immediately. Report for election 1a9bc0c0a05 GNSO Council Election for the GNSO Council Chair AGM 2010-AGM 2011, Second Round, Contracted House Totals: 7 Stéphane van Gelder = 100% 0 None of the above Report for election 246ce971ce8 GNSO Council Election for the GNSO Council Chair AGM 2010-AGM 2011, Second Round, Noncontracted House Totals: 11 Stéphane van Gelder = 84.6% 2 None of the above = 15.4% According to the procedures http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2010.htm approved by the Council on 28 October 2010, Stephane van Gelder has more than 60% of the votes in both houses and has been elected as the GNSO Council chair. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report for election 1a9bc0c0a05 GNSO Council Election for the GNSO Council Chair AGM 2010-AGM 2011, Second Round, Contracted House Submitted Ballots: Bb7a7ab267D:20101201040716:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bb7a7ab267D:20101201040716:[] None of the above B33c8dbe1cD:20101201053846:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B33c8dbe1cD:20101201053846:[] None of the above B228baac12D:20101201091038:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B228baac12D:20101201091038:[] None of the above B221d669aaD:20101202072624:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B221d669aaD:20101202072624:[] None of the above B3b32d1449D:20101202124357:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B3b32d1449D:20101202124357:[] None of the above Bfa0d41387D:20101203110032:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bfa0d41387D:20101203110032:[] None of the above Be854614bbD:20101204095744:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Be854614bbD:20101204095744:[] None of the above Ballots submitted more than once: BallotID Submissions Counted Ballots: Bb7a7ab267D:20101201040716:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bb7a7ab267D:20101201040716:[] None of the above B33c8dbe1cD:20101201053846:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B33c8dbe1cD:20101201053846:[] None of the above B228baac12D:20101201091038:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B228baac12D:20101201091038:[] None of the above B221d669aaD:20101202072624:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B221d669aaD:20101202072624:[] None of the above B3b32d1449D:20101202124357:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B3b32d1449D:20101202124357:[] None of the above Bfa0d41387D:20101203110032:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bfa0d41387D:20101203110032:[] None of the above Be854614bbD:20101204095744:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Be854614bbD:20101204095744:[] None of the above Totals: 0 None of the above 7 Stéphane van Gelder Report for election 246ce971ce8 GNSO Council Election for the GNSO Council Chair AGM 2010-AGM 2011, Second Round, Noncontracted House Submitted Ballots: Bc55c577bcD:20101201014046:[] Stéphane van Gelder Bc55c577bcD:20101201014046:[X] None of the above Bea1ba5fe3D:20101201032907:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bea1ba5fe3D:20101201032907:[] None of the above B82db61dbbD:20101201075657:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B82db61dbbD:20101201075657:[] None of the above B9d8a669b1D:20101201104304:[] Stéphane van Gelder B9d8a669b1D:20101201104304:[X] None of the above B14f29eaddD:20101202230302:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B14f29eaddD:20101202230302:[] None of the above B1904491bdD:20101203105644:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B1904491bdD:20101203105644:[] None of the above B0a0319335D:20101204071109:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B0a0319335D:20101204071109:[] None of the above Bc68c24e7cD:20101204104343:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bc68c24e7cD:20101204104343:[] None of the above Bc68c24e7cD:20101204104345:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bc68c24e7cD:20101204104345:[] None of the above Be3490a0f1D:20101205105031:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Be3490a0f1D:20101205105031:[] None of the above B36983ce3dD:20101205105339:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B36983ce3dD:20101205105339:[] None of the above B0a0319335D:20101205112521:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B0a0319335D:20101205112521:[] None of the above B590995fedD:20101205113655:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B590995fedD:20101205113655:[] None of the above B90cb4b379D:20101206034721:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B90cb4b379D:20101206034721:[] None of the above Baba177792D:20101206043434:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Baba177792D:20101206043434:[] None of the above Ballots submitted more than once: BallotID Submissions B0a0319335D: 2 Bc68c24e7cD: 2 Counted Ballots: Bc55c577bcD:20101201014046:[] Stéphane van Gelder Bc55c577bcD:20101201014046:[X] None of the above Bea1ba5fe3D:20101201032907:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bea1ba5fe3D:20101201032907:[] None of the above B82db61dbbD:20101201075657:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B82db61dbbD:20101201075657:[] None of the above B9d8a669b1D:20101201104304:[] Stéphane van Gelder B9d8a669b1D:20101201104304:[X] None of the above B14f29eaddD:20101202230302:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B14f29eaddD:20101202230302:[] None of the above B1904491bdD:20101203105644:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B1904491bdD:20101203105644:[] None of the above Bc68c24e7cD:20101204104345:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Bc68c24e7cD:20101204104345:[] None of the above Be3490a0f1D:20101205105031:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Be3490a0f1D:20101205105031:[] None of the above B36983ce3dD:20101205105339:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B36983ce3dD:20101205105339:[] None of the above B0a0319335D:20101205112521:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B0a0319335D:20101205112521:[] None of the above B590995fedD:20101205113655:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B590995fedD:20101205113655:[] None of the above B90cb4b379D:20101206034721:[X] Stéphane van Gelder B90cb4b379D:20101206034721:[] None of the above Baba177792D:20101206043434:[X] Stéphane van Gelder Baba177792D:20101206043434:[] None of the above Totals: 2 None of the above 11 Stéphane van Gelder Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

4 3