December 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Deliverables and Timing for Completion of PDP work
by Neuman, Jeff Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

FYI, I submitted this to the PPSC and PDP-WT. I wanted to make sure you were aware of the deliverables and timing. If you have any issues with this, please let me know. 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-gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 9:27 AM To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-ppsc] Deliverables and Timing for Completion of PDP work There has been a lot of discussion at the Council level about the timing for completion of the PDP-WT work as well as the timing and completion of the work of the PPSC and I wanted to throw out my assumptions and best guess at a timeline moving forward. I have already shared these dates with the Council. However, some in the community have stated that I was not pushing the group to act more quickly. So, with that in mind, I want to send this to the list and if you believe that any of the steps below can be eliminated or shortened, please provide me with such feedback along with an alternate schedule in which you believe work can get done. Please keep in mind all of the outstanding issues listed at https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team (in the doc dated November 25th) as well as the fact that we need to complete the draft final report which includes draft Bylaw and PDP Guideline language. 1. Completion of the draft final report: February 1, 2010. Remember that we have the holidays, a number of outstanding issues and we have yet to get any comments from the group on the draft that has been previously circulated. I am also basing this assumption on having five (5) more conference call between now and then, with perhaps one of those being an extended call (Dec 23rd, January 6, Jan 13, Jan 20th and Jan 27th). Does anyone believe we can complete all of work any sooner than that? 2. Public Comment period: Feb 1 - March 25th (53 days). I realize that this may sound like a long time, but (a) I am building in some buffer in case we do not publish by Feb 1 and (b) we want to be able to get comments at a public ICANN meeting (which ends on the 18th). I have built in the extra week because of the rule we propose in our draft final report of allowing for at least a week after an ICANN meeting. Remember that a whole host of other documents will likely be posted by mid February to prepare for the San Francisco meeting. Also, remember that there will be a lot of new material and even with more than 90 days of comment prior for the initial report, some groups like the NCSG and others did not provide feedback for several months after the deadline. Given the considerations outlined above, are there any suggestions in making that time quicker? 3. Preparation of the final report: March 25th - April 30th. This is where we will take the input from the public comment period and incorporate into our final report (as necessary). Personally I believe this time period would be too short, but I am willing to work on it if you all are. 4. Consideration by the PPSC of final Report: May 1 - June 27th. This may seem like a long time to some, but remember, this is where the PPSC needs to review the report, send questions back to the PDP-WT, if any, and submit the report to Council. I am assuming June 27th is the Council meeting. Please note that the above is a VERY aggressive time frame and assumes that we will have full participation on the call as well as on the mailing lists. Again, if anyone has any issues with the above time frame, please speak up now. And if you do, please provide an alternate proposal on action items and time frames. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

Proposed dates for theCouncil meetings January 2011 - January 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

Dear Council members, Please find the proposed dates for Council meetings for January 2011 to January 2012. Please let me know if any of these dates present conflicts for you and then we can attempt to work around those conflicts and find alternate dates. GNSO Teleconferences and face to face meetings January 6 GNSO Council Teleconference 20:00 UTC January 27 GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC February 17 GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 UTC March 16 GNSO Council Public meeting San Francisco 14:00 local time April 7 GNSO Council Teleconference 20:00 UTC April 28 GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC May 19 GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 UTC June 9 GNSO Council Teleconference 20:00 UTC June 22 GNSO Council Public meeting ( Asia Pacific) 14:00 local time July 21 GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC August 11 GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 UTC September 1 GNSO Council Teleconference 20:00 UTC September 22 GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC October 13 GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 UTC October 26 GNSO Council Public meeting (Africa ) 14:00 local time November 17 GNSO Council Teleconference 20:00 UTC December 8 GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 UTC January 5 2012 GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

5 4

Motion and Document Deadline - Wednesday 29 December 2010 for Council meeting on 6 January 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

Dear Council members, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 6 January 2011 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 29 December 2010. Please note that the updated pending project list is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf and will be updated before the next Council meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [gnso-ppsc] question of conflict of interest
by Neuman, Jeff Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

Thanks Avri. I understand your concern and if those on the PPSC and PDP-WT or the Council believe that I will not be able to do both, I will step down as Chair of both the SC and WT. I will note, however, that there is no bylaw or operational procedure that bars a council member from serving as the chair of a working group and I am fine with continuing to serve as well. That said, I am happy to follow the will of the Council and the policy teams. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz ----- Original Message ----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 07:22 PM To: gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org <gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org>; Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-ppsc] question of conflict of interest hi, As I have done before in other circumstances, I question the legitimacy of having a chair for the PPSC or the PDP WT who has ascended to the GNSO council and is one of its vice-chairs I believe that the influence a council member, who is in the position of approving or disapproving the work of PPSC and its WTs is not consistent with also being a Chair of either the PPSC or of a WT. This is a personal question at this point, but I will be forwarding this note to the NCSG to seek their advice on the issue. thanks a

2 1

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

Dec. 8, 2010

Dear All, The following motions were passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting in Cartagena on Thursday 8 December 2010. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion to Terminate The Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars. Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas, the VI Working Group has published its Interim Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 9 November 2010, describing the results of the first phase of its deliberations; Whereas, the Working Group is unable to reach a consensus on any recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider with regard to vertical integration and cross-ownership between Registrars and Registries in time for the first round of new gTLD applications (Phase I); Whereas, in the absence of guidance from the GNSO Council, the ICANN Board has voted to allow new gTLD registries to own registrars, and has opted not to create new rules prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating new gTLD registries; With the publication of the Interim Report, the VI Working Group has suspended its activities pending further instructions from the GNSO Council; and Whereas, in light of these recent developments, the GNSO Council desires to terminate the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recognizes that, in light of these recent developments, there is no longer a need or desire to pursue further policy development activities with respect to this issue; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council formally ends the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the VI PDP Working Group is hereby disbanded. The GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP Working group in producing the Interim Report, and sincerely thanks the Co-Chairs, Mike O'Connor and Roberto Gaetano, for their leadership in this PDP. WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law; WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010; AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community; RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO; RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group and Constituency provide feedback as soon as possible on the CWG's recommendations to the Council. 3. Proposed motion on recommendations made recently by the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the draft AGB.) WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law; WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010; AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community; RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO; RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group and constituency provide feedback as soon as possible to the Council, on the CWG recommendations. 3. 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. 4. Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters. 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-improvementsimplement…; 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 ICANN public meeting in June 2011. RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, including expected deadlines for final delivery. RESOLVED FURTHER, a drafting team shall be established no later than 19 January 2011, to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

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

Dec. 8, 2010

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

1 0

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

Dec. 8, 2010

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

1 0

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

Dec. 8, 2010

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

1 0

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

Dec. 8, 2010

Mary, The redline is not showing up for us. Can u please sned a clean copy? Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RAA motion > From: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Date: Wed, December 08, 2010 3:25 pm > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Hello, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to Kristina's RAA motion. Essentially, it splits the original motion into 2 separate motions; one on the Registrant Rights Charter, and the other regarding the priority topics and Process A. > > With apologies in advance for a very lengthy amendment, > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law > Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now > known as the University of > New Hampshire School of Law. Please > note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the > convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University > of New Hampshire School of Law, please > visit law.unh.edu > > >

2 1

RAA motion
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Hello, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to Kristina's RAA motion. Essentially, it splits the original motion into 2 separate motions; one on the Registrant Rights Charter, and the other regarding the priority topics and Process A. With apologies in advance for a very lengthy amendment, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu

2 1