December 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Cartagena schedule change - Wednesday afternoon GNSO Council meeting conflict with Getting ready -Applications
by Stéphane Van Gelder Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

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 > 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 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. > > 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 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 > http://gnso.icann.org >

5 5

RE: [council] Cartagena schedule change - Wednesday afternoon GNSO Council meeting conflict with Getting ready -Applications
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

Why were not more of us consulted about this change? The new time slot now conflicts directly with the RAA Licensing session. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Cartagena schedule change - Wednesday afternoon > GNSO Council meeting conflict with Getting ready -Applications > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Fri, December 03, 2010 11:18 pm > 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 > > 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 > 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 > 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. > > 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 > 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 > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Public Comment: Proposed Changes to Enhance ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Evaluation Process
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov10-en.htm Public Comment: Proposed Changes to Enhance ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Evaluation Process 22 November 2010 The community is invited to provide comments on proposed measures to enhance ICANN's registrar accreditation evaluation process. Specifically, ICANN is seeking public comment on: 1. A proposed set of terms and conditions [PDF, 214 KB] for the registrar accreditation application; 2. The scope of additional proposed due diligence checks; 3. A proposed increase to the registrar accreditation application fee as a consequence of the need for ICANN to conduct additional information searches to support the additional due diligence checks. Background/Explanation of Proposed Measures ICANN assesses whether an applicant is eligible to become an ICANN-accredited registrar according to the qualification criteria set out in the Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy. The current accreditation evaluation process includes a review of supporting documents and verification of information submitted by each applicant against the qualification criteria, in order to determine if the applicant has sufficient technical, operational and financial capabilities to become an ICANN-accredited registrar. ICANN also conducts a background search of the applicant through public sources, which may provide information or reveal issues that could have a material impact on the applicant's ability to operate a registrar business in accordance with ICANN's requirements. Terms and Conditions In order to enhance the accreditation process, ICANN recently adopted a new version of the Accreditation Application Form and amended the section "Information for Registrars and Registrants" published on its website. To provide further clarity on the respective obligations of the applicant and ICANN in relation to the registrar accreditation applications, ICANN proposes to introduce a set of terms and conditions that will apply to all registrar accreditation applications. A copy of the proposed terms and conditions is available here [PDF, 214 KB]. Additional Due Diligence Checks In addition, members of the community, including representatives of law enforcement agencies, have recommended a number of areas where ICANN should focus further due diligence checks of applicants during the registrar accreditation application process, including: * Criminal records; * Credit records; * Financial history and solvency; * Corporate/company structure and ownership. These due diligence checks would require ICANN to complete these inquiries through the use of external resources (including reputable commercial third party information service providers). Proposed Increase in Registrar Accreditation Application Fee In order to cover the additional third party search costs, ICANN proposes to increase the application fee for all new registrar accreditation applications (on a cost recovery basis) from the current fee of USD 2,500 to USD 3,500. The Process From Here: At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN staff will analyze the comments received and determine the appropriate steps and arrangements that will be required to introduce the terms and conditions and implement any proposed additional due diligence checks and the resulting fee increase for registrar accreditation applications. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: Staff is opening a 60-day public consultation forum, from 22 November 2010 through 21 January 2011 and invites community comments concerning these proposed measures. * The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#registr… * To submit comments: registrar-accredit-eval(a)icann.org * To view comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/registrar-accredit-eval/ Staff Responsible: Steve Gobin Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment Requested on Draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27nov10-en.htm ICANN produces a three-year Strategic Plan (reviewed and updated annually) and an annual Operating Plan. The planning year is made up of several parts: FY12 Development Cycle As part of the early stages of the ICANN's strategic planning process for this year we did an environment scan as to what has changed, reviewed the previous year survey and last year's feedback received from the community to create an updated draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan. In addition there have been consultations with key stakeholders to develop this draft. As the next element of consultation on the 2011-2014 Strategic Plan, ICANN invites comments from the community on this amendment to last year's plan. See http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/draft-strategic-plan-2011-2014-27nov… [PDF, 220 KB]. The comment period will close on 10 January 2010. The draft plan will be revised based on the comments received. A final version of the 2011-2014 Strategic Plan will be submitted to the Board for approval at their upcoming January meeting. Please go to http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#draft-s… in order to participate and share your comments on the draft Strategic Plan for 2011-2014. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Community Comment Invited on New Permanent Charter of GNSO's Commercial Stakeholder Group
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02dec10-en.htm Public Comment: Community Comment Invited on New Permanent Charter of GNSO's Commercial Stakeholder Group 2 December 2010 The Constituencies of the GNSO's Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) have informed ICANN Staff that they have ratified a permanent CSG charter document. Consistent with the Board's oversight authority regarding GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters (see ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5 (3)), the Staff has opened a public comment forum to seek community comments on the new permanent charter document. A copy of the new CSG Charter document ratified by the Commercial and Business, Intellectual Property and Internet Service and Connection Providers Constituencies can be found at - http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/csg-revised-charter-30nov10-en.pdf [PDF, 301 KB] All members of the ICANN community are invited to review the document and share comments and observations with the Board and the wider community through 23 January 2011. Background and Explanation: As part of the comprehensive GNSO Improvements effort, last July the ICANN Board approved (see ICANN Board Resolution 2009.30.07.09) the Charters of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs). These SG structures represented a new concept for the GNSO that was envisioned by the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group On GNSO Improvements (BGC WG -see the BGC WG's February 2008 Report here [PDF, 193 KB]). The Charter approved for the CSG last July was termed a "transitional" charter [PDF, 32 KB]. Sections 3 and 8.2 of that transitional charter anticipated future CSG efforts to establish a permanent "final' charter document. The Constituencies of the CSG (Commercial and Business, Intellectual Property and Internet Service and Connection Providers) have informed ICANN Staff that they have now ratified a permanent charter document. The Process From Here: At the end of this public comment forum period, the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the comments submitted regarding the CSG Charter. That summary/analysis will be shared with the community and the Board. The Board will subsequently take action regarding the charter document consistent with its GNSO SG oversight authority. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a public consultation forum through 23 January 2011, and invites community comments on this topic. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#csg-per… To submit comments: csg-permanent-charter(a)icann.org To view (and consider responding) to the comments of others: http://forum.icann.org/lists/csg-permanent-charter/ Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Community Comment Invited on Petition To Form A New GNSO Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01dec10-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment: Community Comment Invited on Petition To Form A New GNSO Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency 1 December 2010 The ongoing GNSO Improvements process has created significant community interest in the formation of new GNSO constituencies and several groups have stepped forward to begin the process of forming a new GNSO constituency. The ICANN Board has now received its fifth formal petition - from the prospective Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency (NPOC). The NPOC proponents propose to join the Non Commercial Stakeholders Group of the GNSO. All members of the ICANN community and the public are now invited to review the petition and charter of the NPOC and share comments with the Board and community through 23 January 2011. Background and Explanation: In June 2008, the Board of Directors endorsed a series of recommendations on how to improve the GNSO’s structures and operations. One of the significant drivers of those recommendations was an interest in maximizing participation in the GNSO and its policy development processes. Among the various recommendations endorsed by the Board was that ICANN take steps to clarify and promote the option to self-form new constituencies. The current ICANN Bylaws provide that any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate constituency, in accordance with Section 5(4) of Article X. Such a petition must explain (1) why “the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities” and (2) why “the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.” Despite those Bylaw provisions, it has been many years since the organization has had formal requests for a new constituency. Since the Board action in June 2008, however, the ICANN Staff has received inquiries from several interested parties about how to form a new GNSO constituency . The ICANN bylaws do not provide specific procedural guidance for how interested parties should submit the petitions contemplated in Article X. Mindful that explicit steps, formats, and/or processes for expansion would take some time for the community to develop in the implementation of the improvements recommendations, the Board directed ICANN Staff to provide the community with some initial guidance, a structure and a specific procedural path for potential new constituencies to follow. At its 1 October 2008 meeting, the Board acknowledged Staff's development of a "Notice of Intent" document for potential new constituencies and directed Staff to develop a formal petition and charter template to assist new constituency applicants in satisfying the formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. The process subsequently developed by the Staff required interested groups to first submit a Notice of Intent to Form a New Constituency (NOIF). The NPOC proponents completed that first step on 15 June 2010. The second step of the process is development of a New Constituency Petition and Charter. The NPOC proponents completed that effort on 2 November 2010. Relevant Board Resolution, Bylaws and Constituency Submissions: · Minutes of 1 October 2008 ICANN Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm · ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5, Subsection 4: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm - X-5.1<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.1> · Copies of the Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency Petition Documents: The NPOC Charter Cover Letter<http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/npoc-charter-cover-letter-02nov10-en.pdf> [PDF, 41 KB]; The NPOC Petition (redacted) and Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/npoc-charter-redacted-02nov10-en.pdf> [PDF, 164 KB] The Public Comment Forum of this proceeding<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#npoc-pe…> The Process From Here: At the end of this Public Comment Forum period, the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the comments submitted regarding the NPOC petition and charter. That summary/analysis will be shared with the community and the Board. The Board will ultimately make the decision on whether to authorize the new constituency. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a public consultation forum, from 1 December 2010 through 23 January 2011, and invites community comments on this matter. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#npoc-pe… To submit comments: npoc-petition-charter(a)icann.org<mailto:npoc-petition-charter@icann.org> To view comments (including the various constituency submissions): http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-petition-charter/ Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Meeting with the Board on Sunday - Suggested topics for discussion
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

Dear All, Please find the topics to be discussed with the ICANN Board on Sunday afternoon https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_5_december_2010 - A conversation that includes Rec. 6 and applicant support-substantive strengths and weaknesses of the groups' outputs to date, best ways to carry these initiatives forward. - Next challenges of the new gtld process: vertical integration next steps, lowering barriers for special projects, outcomes of the outreach activities done so far. - Outcomes of the Affirmation of Committments (what has been achieved so far?). - measuring success of the new gTLD program It is a requirement under our Affirmation of Commitments to do so. I would like to ask the GNSO to consider what the measures of success should be. There might be some short term measures (e.g number of applications, number of applications with non-Latin characters) and also long term measures (DNS traffic from new gTLDs, number of second level registrations etc). Prior to a review process - I would like to understand what we will be measuring, and what targets for those measures would be seen as "success" by the GNSO. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Public Meeting - Cartagena 8 December 2010, 14:00 COT (19:00 UTC)
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-08dec10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_8_december_2010 Motions : https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions 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 b. Update any statements of interest c. Review/amend agenda d. 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

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#26]
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 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: vendredi 3 décembre 2010 01:27 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#26] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Thursday, December 2, 2010 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair, NCSG Executive Committee Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Rafik Dammak, on 1 Dec, notified the GNSO secretariat and the NCSG that he would be unable to attend the full sequence of regularly scheduled GNSO meetings to be held in Cartagena from 4 December 2010 until 10 December 2010. This unavailability includes both face to face and remote participation. As the NCSG did not wish to give up its full representation in this sequence of important GNSO Council meetings, it is availing itself of the provisions contained in the GNSO Council Procedures for the assignment of Temporary Replacement. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All actions to be initiated in Cartagena from 4 Dec until 10 Dec 2010. This specifically does not include the ongoing GNSO election for Chair. 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] * Saturday, December 11, 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]. * Konstantinos Komaitis Temporary Alternate Email Address: * k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk<mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>

1 0

hola from the NTIA
by William Drake Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

enjoy your meeting... http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf -- *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch http://www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************

1 0

Council notification of Temporary Alternate Assignment for Cartagena
by Ken Bour Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

Hi Glen: I wanted to test for myself if there was any kind of system problem, so I completed the online Abstention Notification Form using the information provided by Avri (below). You should receive an official copy shortly. The form saved for me the first time and presented a successful notification. I wonder if there might be issues depending upon the browser version or operating system. In my case, I used Google Chrome under Windows 7. Perhaps we should send Avri's original email to ICANN I/T for additional research. Ken -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:08 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] FW: Council notification of Temporary Alternate Assignment for Cartagena -----Original Message----- Forwarded From: Avri Doria Subject: Council notification of Temporary Alternate Assignment for Cartagena <Note: I tried to use the form at <http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm>, but it crashed on me twice. > Name of Officer: Avri Doria Email Address: avri(a)acm.org Date Prepared: Thursday 2 December, 2010 GNSO Organizations: NCSG Officer: Chair, NCSG Executive Committee Voting Remedy: Temporary Alternate Reasons: Rafik Dammak, on 1 Dec, notified the GNSO secretariat and the NCSG that he would be unable to attend the full sequence of regularly scheduled GNSO meetings to be held in Cartagena from 4 December 2010 until 10 December 2010. This unavailability includes both face to face and remote participation. As the NCSG did not wish to give up its full representation in this sequence of important GNSO Council meetings, it is availing itself of the provisions contained in the GNSO Council Procedures for the assignment of Temporary Replacement. Specific subjects/measure/motions/actions of the council for which the remedy is being exercised: All actions to be initiated in Cartagena from 4 Dec until 10 Dec 2010. This specifically does not include the ongoing GNSO election for Chair. Expiration Date: Saturday 11 Dec 2010 Assigned individual: Konstantinos Komaitis Assigned individual's email: <k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Council notification of Temporary Alternate Assignment for Cartagena
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

-----Original Message----- Forwarded From: Avri Doria Subject: Council notification of Temporary Alternate Assignment for Cartagena <Note: I tried to use the form at <http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm>, but it crashed on me twice. > Name of Officer: Avri Doria Email Address: avri(a)acm.org Date Prepared: Thursday 2 December, 2010 GNSO Organizations: NCSG Officer: Chair, NCSG Executive Committee Voting Remedy: Temporary Alternate Reasons: Rafik Dammak, on 1 Dec, notified the GNSO secretariat and the NCSG that he would be unable to attend the full sequence of regularly scheduled GNSO meetings to be held in Cartagena from 4 December 2010 until 10 December 2010. This unavailability includes both face to face and remote participation. As the NCSG did not wish to give up its full representation in this sequence of important GNSO Council meetings, it is availing itself of the provisions contained in the GNSO Council Procedures for the assignment of Temporary Replacement. Specific subjects/measure/motions/actions of the council for which the remedy is being exercised: All actions to be initiated in Cartagena from 4 Dec until 10 Dec 2010. This specifically does not include the ongoing GNSO election for Chair. Expiration Date: Saturday 11 Dec 2010 Assigned individual: Konstantinos Komaitis Assigned individual's email: <k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Cartagena schedule update, Saturday Dec 4
by Stéphane Van Gelder Dec. 2, 2010

Dec. 2, 2010

Hi all, Please note that we have updated our weekend schedule to reflect a presentation that Margie has volunteered to make to the Council on Rec6. This will be part of our lunchtime session, from 13 to 14:00. Margie has forwarded the following agenda for her presentation: 1. Overview of the CWG Rec6 Report Recommendations 2. Overview of Recent Events including Board Resolutions, Final Proposed Applicant Guidebook treatment, and CWG Consultation 3. Discussion of Motion to Endorse 4. Q&A Thanks, Stéphane

3 2

FW: Contracted Party House - election of Vice Chair of GNSO Council
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 2, 2010

Dec. 2, 2010

Forwarded From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@pir.org] Dear Glen: This is the notice of the Contracted Party House of the GNSO that we have elected Jeff Neuman as Vice Chair of the Council, by agreement of the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups, to serve in the new Council. Please let me know if you have any questions. David David W. Maher Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group Senior Vice President - Law & Policy Public Interest Registry CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation

4 4

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

Dec. 1, 2010

2 1

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

Dec. 1, 2010

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

1 0

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

Dec. 1, 2010

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

2 1

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

Dec. 1, 2010

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

3 2

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

Dec. 1, 2010

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

2 1

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

Dec. 1, 2010

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

1 0

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

Dec. 1, 2010

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

1 0

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

Dec. 1, 2010

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

2 1

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

Dec. 1, 2010

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

1 0

ICANN Board agenda - 10 Dec 2010
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-10dec10-en.htm Agenda for Board Meeting - Cartagena 10 December 2010 Consent Agenda: =============== 1. Approval of Minutes from 28 October 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting 2. Approval of Minutes from 5 November 2010 ICANN Board Meeting 3. Thank You's 4. From the Board Governance Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting): a. Approval of Bylaw Amendments on Board Member Term Transitions b. Response to Reconsideration Requests 10-2 and 10-3 5. From the Structural Improvements Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting): a. Approval of Posting of New Constituency Charter b. Approval of NomCom Review Implementation c. Approval of RSSAC Review High-Level Implementation Plan 6. From the Board Finance Committee (tentative depending on committee meeting): a. ICANN Investment Policy 7. Approval of Location of the Asia June 2011 Meeting (tentative depending on Finance & PPC committee meetings) 8. Acknowledgment of Receipt of FY 11 Update to the ICANN Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency 9. Approval of MoU with the New Partnership for Africa's Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD/NPCA) 10. Status Report on AOC Reviews 11. UDRP Status Update Main Agenda: ============ 1. From the Structural Improvements Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting): 2. SSAC Bylaw Changes 3. Strategic Plan 4. New gTLDs a. Guidebook Consideration b. Morality & Public Order c. Geographic Names 5. SSAC Report on Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System 6. ICM Registry Sponsored Top-Level Domains - .XXX 7. Items Arising from the Cartagena Meeting 8. Any Other Business Agenda for Organizational Meeting - 10 December 2010 - Cartagena ================================================================= 1. Election of Board Chairman 2. Election of Board Vice-Chairman 3. Appointment of Membership of Board Committees 4. Confirmation of Officers of ICANN 5. Other Business

2 2

Updated SOI
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

Hi, I have been asked about the projects I am involved in as a consultant, so I thought it could be useful to detail them in my updated Statement of Interest, which I include in this email. Best regards, Olga* * * * *Statement of Interest * Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee I hold a degree in Electronic and Electric Engineer, an MBA, a Masters Degree in Telecommunication Regulation and a PhD in Business Administration. >From the academic side, I am a professor at the University of Buenos Aires, at the Instituto Tecnológico Buenos Aires and at the Diplomacy Career of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina. In these institutions I teach technology, organizational structure and public policy related with technology. I am a member of the MAG, Multistakeholder Advisory Group for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). In the private sector, I have worked as a consultant for companies and non-governmental organizations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela, USA, Canada and Germany. Presently these are the most important projects I am involved in: Enhance Internet connectivity in rural areas in the interior of Argentina - Jointly with UNESCO. South School on Internet Governance - Third edition - Mexico DF April 2011. Telecommunications and Internet license management for rural Internet connectivity projects including e-commerce platforms for agricultural cooperatives. President of the Forum "Women, engineering and business" of the World Engineering Congress 2010 and president of the Commission "Women engineers for development in Argentina" in the Centro Argentino de Ingenieros. In the near future I plan also to be involved in the following activities: Roaming regulations harmonization in Latin America - Project financed by the Interamerican Bank of Development BID. Fellowship program for "Women engineers for development in Argentina". Commercial and marketing strategic planning for domain name resellers in Latin America and the Caribbean. Public wifi network development for cities in Argentina. I am also the Secretary of the ISOC Argentina chapter ISOC AR and a certified engineer of the National Engineers Council.

2 4