December 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

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

Dec. 7, 2010

Makes sense Chuck....put my early congrats on hold in that case, although I'd like to think everything is in order. ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> To: Caroline Greer; council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tue Dec 07 00:23:50 2010 Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council chair results for second round - all the votes have been received It might be a good idea for us to hold off until everyone has a chance to ensure their vote was counted correctly before officially declaring an election. I am quite confident that the results are accurate, but I think it would be good to allow until at least 9 am COT tomorrow to provide an opportunity for everyone to check their votes. If no-one identifies any voting problems by then, then I think it would be fine to make it official. Does that make sense? Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:10 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council chair results for second round - all the votes have been received 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/>

1 0

Surgery Update
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

The surgery was a success. I have no more pain because the 12 mm stone was broken up. The doctor said it would be okay for me to travel back to Cartagena tomorrow so International SOS is working on booking a flight in the afternoon. The surgery lasted about 90 minutes because of the size of the stone but the doctor successfully did everything he planned. They kept me in recovery a lot longer than anticipated because my blood pressure stayed elevated. Not sure why because I normally do not have any blood pressure problems. I am back in my room now and my blood pressure is perfect. Thanks again for all the well wishes. Chuck

1 0

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

Dec. 6, 2010

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

8 13

GNSO Council chair results for second round - all the votes have been received
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

FW: Chuck update
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

From: Pedraza Barrios, Ricardo Hi, The medical procedure was successful and Chuck is already at the Recovery room :-). Ricardo Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [council] Clarification & next steps for Rec 6 motion
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

Thanks Mary. (1) I don't really believe this. If you carefully consider what Staff says it is clear that at least some sense of the Board is being reflected in the reply. Is it a formal Board response, no. But to characterize it as only a Staff response is not right either. (2) Does the response from the CWG have the full consensus of the CWG? Some I have heard from indicate that based on the Staff/Board response they nave changed their position on some of the recs. So if the CWG does forward with a response I think it should be clear as to who supports what. (3) This is why you should not have made such an 11th hour motion. I think it will be difficult to near impossible for us to vote in favor of this motion. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Clarification & next steps for Rec 6 motion > From: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Date: Mon, December 06, 2010 9:37 am > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > I thought it would be useful if I provide some additional context and clarification regarding the Rec 6 motion that is up for voting this Wednesday. Bearing in mind that the Rec 6 CWG was approved and chartered by us in September, and that silence or a down vote by us on this matter will be viewed as a lack of support by the GNSO of the work done (unlike, say, the STI recommendations which we endorsed and that resulted in substantive changes to the DAG), I am hopeful that we can arrive at satisfactory language for a positive outcome on the motion. > > Here are some points that may not have been made entirely clear before: > > (1) The explanatory memo setting out reasons for not adopting some CWG recommendations is a staff document, not a Board-endorsed response. In fact, the Board is interested to know what the GNSO thinks before voting/acting on this issue in the DAG. > > (2) There is a pending response from the CWG to the staff, based on questions and discussions arising from the staff memo, which the CWG expects will clarify certain of its recommendations for the staff (and hence the Board). I expect this response to be forwarded very shortly, possibly even today. > > (3) As mentioned above, a lack of Council action on Rec 6 is very likely to be taken as lack of support for any of the CWG recommendations, including the numerous ones that received Full Consensus. I believe this would be detrimental to both our managerial and our representative role, and further believe that this would NOT necessarily mean the Board will therefore vote to move ahead immediately with new gTLDs (particularly given points (1) & (2) above.) In other words, the Board may vote to postpone its decision on the matter pending further resolution and action from us and/or the GAC. > > (4) I understand that some SGs/constituencies may not have had the bandwidth to fully discuss all the recommendations (note that the CWG report does state the following: > > "Given the short duration of the Rec6 CWG's existence, the participating supporting organizations and advisory organizations have not been provided with the opportunity to review and comment on this Report. The Rec6 CWG recommends that each participating organization should follow its procedures as described in the ICANN Bylaws as may be necessary or appropriate to comment on and communicate to the ICANN Board the opinion of its members with regard to the recommendations contained in this Report....") > > I would like to be able to discuss any suggested changes to the motion that will make it more acceptable to you and your SGs/constituencies. Please let me know if and when you would like to do so before Wednesday. I hope we can arrive at a mutually agreeable motion that will allow the Board to act with better information and input from the GNSO. > > Thanks very much, > 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

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

Dec. 6, 2010

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

2 1

FW: Rescinding request for temporary alternate
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

-----Original Message----- Forwarded From: Avri Doria Sent: lundi 6 décembre 2010 12:28 To: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Rescinding request for temporary alternate Dear Glen, It turns out that the weather in Europe has made it impossible for Konstantinos to get to Cartagena any sooner than Thursday at this point, which is of course a problem. We have also prevailed upon Rafik Dammak, based on this, to participate remotely in the Wednesday GNSO meeting even though he is generally unavailable during this period and due to the difficulty in remote participation. As you probably noticed he has been trying to dial-in to the meetings in Konstantinos' absence, although not always very successfully. I am not sure what the process for rescinding a temporary alternate is, and I do not think the form is adapted for that, but please consider this email such a rescission. Avri Doria Chair Executive Committee NCSG Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

Clarification & next steps for Rec 6 motion
by Mary Wong Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

Hello everyone, I thought it would be useful if I provide some additional context and clarification regarding the Rec 6 motion that is up for voting this Wednesday. Bearing in mind that the Rec 6 CWG was approved and chartered by us in September, and that silence or a down vote by us on this matter will be viewed as a lack of support by the GNSO of the work done (unlike, say, the STI recommendations which we endorsed and that resulted in substantive changes to the DAG), I am hopeful that we can arrive at satisfactory language for a positive outcome on the motion. Here are some points that may not have been made entirely clear before: (1) The explanatory memo setting out reasons for not adopting some CWG recommendations is a staff document, not a Board-endorsed response. In fact, the Board is interested to know what the GNSO thinks before voting/acting on this issue in the DAG. (2) There is a pending response from the CWG to the staff, based on questions and discussions arising from the staff memo, which the CWG expects will clarify certain of its recommendations for the staff (and hence the Board). I expect this response to be forwarded very shortly, possibly even today. (3) As mentioned above, a lack of Council action on Rec 6 is very likely to be taken as lack of support for any of the CWG recommendations, including the numerous ones that received Full Consensus. I believe this would be detrimental to both our managerial and our representative role, and further believe that this would NOT necessarily mean the Board will therefore vote to move ahead immediately with new gTLDs (particularly given points (1) & (2) above.) In other words, the Board may vote to postpone its decision on the matter pending further resolution and action from us and/or the GAC. (4) I understand that some SGs/constituencies may not have had the bandwidth to fully discuss all the recommendations (note that the CWG report does state the following: "Given the short duration of the Rec6 CWG's existence, the participating supporting organizations and advisory organizations have not been provided with the opportunity to review and comment on this Report. The Rec6 CWG recommends that each participating organization should follow its procedures as described in the ICANN Bylaws as may be necessary or appropriate to comment on and communicate to the ICANN Board the opinion of its members with regard to the recommendations contained in this Report....") I would like to be able to discuss any suggested changes to the motion that will make it more acceptable to you and your SGs/constituencies. Please let me know if and when you would like to do so before Wednesday. I hope we can arrive at a mutually agreeable motion that will allow the Board to act with better information and input from the GNSO. Thanks very much, 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

Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG
by Mary Wong Dec. 5, 2010

Dec. 5, 2010

Hello again everyone I'd like to propose a motion for the Council's consideration at the 8 December meeting. This motion relates to the recommendations made recently by the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the DAG.) You'll recall that the Council supported GNSO participation in the CWG, in a resolution passed on 8 September. As you may also recall, the CWG's task included making recommendations that would render the MAPO section of the DAG acceptable to the broader community, yet still accomplishing the implementation of Recommendation 6. I understand that there is concern amongst some Council members that continuing a cross-community working group model will in some way diminish the GNSO's role in policy development and/or impinge on Consensus Policies. This concern is part of a wider discussion that to my mind is not implicated by the Rec 6 CWG process or recommendations, in relation to which the much more pressing concern is to ensure that the ICANN Board, staff and community do NOT interpret the Council's silence and inactivity, following the original September motion, as lack of GNSO community support for the CWG's recommendations. Thus, I propose a motion, as follows: WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (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. 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

2 1

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

Dec. 5, 2010

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

3 2

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

Dec. 5, 2010

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

1 0

GAC question
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 5, 2010

Dec. 5, 2010

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

2 1

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

Dec. 5, 2010

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

1 0

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

Dec. 5, 2010

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

2 2

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

Dec. 5, 2010

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

3 2

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

Dec. 4, 2010

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

2 2

Updates from JIG
by Edmon Chung Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

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

2 1

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

Dec. 4, 2010

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

8 13

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

Dec. 4, 2010

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

3 3

FW: Update
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

Forwarded From: Gomes, Chuck Glen, Please forward this to the Council list. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 01:44 PM To: 'gnso-council(a)icann.org' <gnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: Update I am scheduled to fly to Bogota late this afternoon to have the stones in the ureter blasted at the university hospital there. If all goes well, I could be back in Cartagena as soon as Sunday night or Monday morning. Thanks again for all the good wishes. Chuck

2 1

Update Statement fo Interest
by Adrian Kinderis Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

All, Please see my updated Statement of Interest for your information. Adrian Kinderis - Statement of Interest I am Chief Executive Officer of AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd a company based in Melbourne, Australia and an ICANN accredited Registrar and member of the Registrar Stakeholder Group. The subsidiary, AusRegistry International, has been appointed as an observer to the Registry Stakeholder Group. The AusRegistry Group of companies includes; - AusRegistry Pty Ltd which is o the Registry Services provider for all second level .au domain names - AusRegistry International Pty Ltd which is o a Registry Consultancy Service o a Registry Software and infrastructure provider for ccTLD's (including IDN ccTLD's) o a Registry Software and infrastructure provider around new gTLD's (including IDN gTLD's) o AusRegistry International currently has no plans to apply for any new gTLD's as a gTLD applicant (In other words there is no real change to our underlying business model - of providing technology services for Domain Name Registries and Registration) I hold the position of Director in all companies above. None of the companies within the AusRegistry Group are affiliated with any current gTLD Registry operator with the exception of AusRegistry Pty Ltd of which Afilias has a minority shareholding. I am not in possession of any gTLD Registry proprietary or sensitive information, nor have I ever been. I am not an officer, director, consultant, or employee of any other member of this Constituency or any other ICANN Constituency. End Statement of Interest Thanks, Adrian Kinderis

2 1

Motion for JAS WG charter extension
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

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

4 7

Council Resolution 20081105
by Mike Rodenbaugh Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

Could someone from the TLD team on Staff indicate whether this Resolution was considered when devising the timeline for the current public comment period re the PF-AG? Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh 20081105-1 Motion on the extension of Public Comment Periods during ICANN meetings Motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Zahid Jamil and Kristina Rosette Whereas, ICANN's meetings require the full attention of GNSO Councilors and many other GNSO participants. Whereas, ICANN has many ongoing public comment periods of significant interest to many GNSO Councilors and participants. Whereas, ICANN's typical comment periods are already difficult for many members of the ICANN community, particularly those that must consult with members of their Constituency and/or member organization(s). RESOLVED: The GNSO Council strongly urges ICANN Staff to extend, for seven days, any public comment periods which overlap with any of the seven days of an ICANN meeting. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

1 0

Re: [council] Apologies and Update
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

Chuck We'll take care of the shop - you focus on getting thru this! Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 00:30:41 To: <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <subrenat(a)icann.org> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Apologies and Update I apologize for missing the start of our work sessions today and thank Stephane, Olga and glen for taking the lead. I have been in the emergency room at Nuevo Hospital Bocagrande in Cartagena since mid-afternoon yesterday. I have a 1 cm kidney stone in the ureter between my left kidney and my bladder that was causing severe pain and nausea. They have controlled the pain well via intravenous meds. Considering how noisy it was, I slept surprisingly well last night, undoubtedly helped by the meds. Next steps will hopefully be determined this morning. The hospital urologist is supposed to meet with me this morning to discuss his recommendations. And I am also expecting advice from doctors in the U.S. associated with the international medical coverage provided by VeriSign. Other than being impatient and frustrated, I am doing fine and still hoping that I can join the week of meetings soon. Chuck From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:18 AM To: Jean-Jacques Subrenat <subrenat(a)icann.org> Cc: Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>; Kristina Nordstrom <kristina.nordstrom(a)icann.org>; Nancy Lupiano <nancy.lupiano(a)icann.org>; Tanzanica S. King <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org>; GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Cartagena schedule change - Wednesday afternoon GNSO Council meeting conflict with Getting ready -Applications Thanks Jean-Jacques, much appreciated. Copying the Council list for everyone's information. Stéphane Le 3 déc. 2010 à 22:11, Jean-Jacques Subrenat a écrit : Dear Nick, approved. Regards, Jean-Jacques. ________________________________ De : Nick Tomasso [mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org] Envoyé : samedi 4 décembre 2010 4:15 À : Jean-Jacques Subrenat Cc : Glen de Saint Géry; Stéphane Van Gelder; Kristina Nordstrom; Nancy Lupiano; Tanzanica S. King Objet : FW: [council] Cartagena schedule change - Wednesday afternoon GNSO Council meeting conflict with Getting ready -Applications Dear Jean-Jacques, in keeping with the established policy regarding changes to the public schedule for ICANN Meetings within the 15-day window, we seek your approval for a change to a public session for Cartagena as outlined in the attached email. Stéphane van Gelder and Kristina Rosette have requested the changed, which Glen has outlined below. We have concurrence from all parties involved, and space is available. I recommend that you approve the change. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best regards, Nick ==================================== Nick Tomasso Senior Director, Meetings & Languages Services ICANN Tel: +1-310-630-7730 email: nick.tomasso(a)icann.org <mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org> web: www.icann.org From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:54 PM To: Nick Tomasso Cc: Glen de Saint Gery; Stéphane Van Gelder; Tanzanica S. King; Nancy Lupiano Subject: FW: [council] Cartagena schedule change - Wednesday afternoon GNSO Council meetingconflict with Getting ready -Applications Dear Nick, Would it be possible for you to please change the Getting Ready new gTLD session http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15611 <http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15611> currently scheduled on Wednesday 8 December at 17:00 - 18:00 because this is in direct conflict with the GNSO Council meeting http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15379 <http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15379> . Stéphane van Gelder the GNSO Council vice chair who is actually tasked with scheduling GNSO meetings on behalf of the Council, encouraged by Chuck Gomes, the GNSO Council chair, have requested that the Getting Ready session be changed as it conflicts with the GNSO Council meeting, which has purposefully been moved to the afternoon to attract a large audience which will be similar to the Getting Ready session. The reason why this conflict should be resolved is because one of the councilors, Kristina Rosette of the Intellectual Property constituency has been asked to participate as a panelists in the Getting Ready session. In addition, the session is of paramount importance to the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies who are all involved in the Getting Ready for new gTLDs as registrars, registries, business, intellectual and Internet service providers as well as the non-commercial group. In consulation with Tanzie, and Nancy there is a possibility to move the Getting Ready new gTLD session http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15611 <http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15611> to the morning from 11:00-12:00 opposite the GAC meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0