February 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 19, 2010

Feb. 19, 2010

FYI Chuck ________________________________ From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:41 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Cavalli, Olga'; 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: RE: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi Chuck Thanks for sending questions. In my mind – there is enough material to entertain discussion at least 6 hours. Therefore, I will forward the list to my GAC colleagues and will ask them to prepare for the debate. If there will be questions from GAC side I will let you know. On the logistics – all my answers are affirmative and I will make sure that all councilors are seated at the table during the discussion. We will discuss with Olga all modalities right before the meeting. Best regards JK From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: ceturtdiena, 2010. gada 18. februārī 22:05 To: Janis Karklins Cc: Cavalli, Olga; Janis Karklins; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi Janis, To help us make the most effective use of our time in the Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi, the GNSO Council would like to propose the attached draft approach to the meeting. As you can see, there is undoubtedly too much to cover in one hour, especially if there is very much discussion, and I hope there will be. You may want to identify the topics and questions under each topic that you think would be most useful and accepted by GAC members. Please feel free to trip it down as you see fit. After I receive your feedback, we would like to post it on the GNSO site; if you would like it also posted on the ICANN meeting site, we can do that as well; just let me know. VeriSign is not allowing any employees to attend the Nairobi meetings in person so I will not be there, but I do plan to try to participate remotely assuming remote connectivity is provided. Is it okay with you to have remote connectivity for our joint meeting? Our vice chairs Olga Cavalli and Stephane Van Gelder plan to participate in the meeting in Nairobi and Olga will fill in for me in my absence. Regarding meeting logistics, I would like to request that as many Councilors as possible be able to sit at tables with microphones alongside GAC members. Whatever can be done to facilitate that would be appreciated, but please understand that we do not want to displace GAC members who should also be at those tables. Note that we will have fewer Councilors in attendance than normal so not as many seats will be needed. Also, I would suggest that GNSO observers seat in the perimeter area if seating is limited. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Chuck

1 0

FW: AoC A&T Review Teams
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 19, 2010

Feb. 19, 2010

Here's is Peter's reponse to Kristina's question. Chuck ________________________________ From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 6:17 PM To: Janis Karklins Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marco Lorenzoni'; "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Cavalli, Olga' Subject: Re: AoC A&T Review Teams Chuck endorsing what Janis has said; seems strange that the Board Chair and the GAC can, but the SO and other AC chairs cant... I think its a question for each SO to determine, observing usual conflict of interest rules and the common sense which you and others bring to making these things work. regards Peter On 19/02/2010, at 11:20 AM, Janis Karklins wrote: Chuck I can speak for myself only: There have been comments that SO/AC chairs should abstain from presenting their candidatures to the RTs. There isn’t any formal provision which would prevent chairs to be candidates. Especially, when the Chair of the GAC is a member of the RT ex officio. In order to ensure equal treatment of all Chairs, I am seriously considering to nominate somebody to represent me in the RT. This is, of course, subject of sufficient number and quality of governmental candidates for the RTs. Best regards JK From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: ceturtdiena, 2010. gada 18. februārī 22:21 To: Peter Dengate-Thrush; Janis Karklins Cc: Marco Lorenzoni; Stéphane Van Gelder; Cavalli, Olga Subject: AoC A&T Review Teams Peter/Janis, The following question was raised in the GNSO Council meeting today regarding your final selection of AoC A&T Review Team members: Is there any anticipation that leaders in an SO or AC (councilors, chairs, etc.) would be eliminated from consideration for the RT? I stated that I was unaware of any restrictions like this, but said I would ask the two of you. For your information, there are differences of opinion on this issue in the GNSO. BTW, thanks for the extension of time. Chuck Gomes

2 1

Preliminary Report of ICANN Board meeting 19 February 2010
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 19, 2010

Feb. 19, 2010

Hello All, See below. The Board decided to reconfirm the meeting in Nairobi, but authorised additional funding for enhancing remote participation. This funding is intended for things like additional staff to monitor the audio/video feeds, etc. So far it looks like nearly all the Board will attend. I have only heard of one liaison so far that can't attend. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-19feb10-en.htm Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting 19 February 2010 [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] Note: This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but does provide a preliminary attempt setting forth the unapproved reporting of the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Board's Minutes, when approved by the board at a future meeting. A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference 19 February 2010 @ 03.00 UTC. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush promptly called the meeting to order. In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Dennis Jennings (Vice Chairman), Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Raimundo Beca, Steve Crocker, Rita Rodin Johnston, Raymond A. Plzak, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, and Katim Touray. Gonzalo Navarro sent his apologies. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Jonne Soininen, TLG Liaison; Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison. This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 19 February 2010. Agenda Discussion regarding Upcoming ICANN International Meeting Rod Beckstrom, Doug Brent and Geoff Bickers led a presentation to the Board on the following topics relating to the upcoming International Meeting in Nairobi: a) the additional measures taken by the Kenyan hosts and ICANN to enhance security; b) the current registration and cancellation figures, particularly noting those who have declared they will not attend; c) the full agenda planned for the meeting, with a commitment to move ahead on relevant decisions; d) the demands and challenges to providing enhanced remote participation tools, to support those who will not be able to attend in person; the need for ongoing monitoring of the security situation; and, e) the ongoing communication with the community. The Board then took the following action: Review of Plans for ICANN's 37th International Meeting in Nairobi  ================================================================= Whereas, the ICANN Board approved holding its 2010 Africa meeting in Nairobi during its May 2009 Board Meeting (see resolution 2009.05.21.09);   Whereas, the ICANN Board has reconfirmed its commitment to hold the 37th International Meeting in Nairobi, during its January 2010 Board Meeting (see resolution 2010.01.22.01);   Whereas, ICANN has continued to receive external information and questions regarding security and has conducted internal reviews and external reviews of the current security conditions following on from recent events in Nairobi;   Resolved (2010.02.18.01), the ICANN Board has reviewed and confirms the plans for its upcoming 37th International ICANN Meeting in Nairobi;   Resolved (2010.02.18.02), the ICANN Board directs the CEO to continue to communicate widely with the community and provide information regarding the meeting;   Resolved (2010.02.18.03), the ICANN Board directs the CEO to report back to the ICANN Board following the 37th International Meeting on the use of the adjustments and approaches relating to enhancement of ICANN's meetings. 10 Board members voted in favor of the resolutions. One board member voted against the resolutions, and three abstained from voting. One Board member was not available to vote on the resolution. The resolution carried. Following on from a board member suggestion to withhold cost information while the Nairobi meeting is still being prepared and planned, the board members also approved a resolution to redact one resolution (2010.02.02.18.04) from the preliminary report until after the Nairobi meeting. The redacted resolution was regarding specific funding authorization for enhanced public participation. General Counsel & Secretary, John Jeffrey agreed that this redaction could be made consistent with Article III, Section 5, Paragraph 2 of the ICANN Bylaws, thus allowing the amount to be withheld until the arrangements are made and the resolution can be posted in the formal minutes of this meeting. Staff will continue to communicate widely with the community regarding the Nairobi meeting in line with the Board's direction and guidance. Meeting adjourned 4.35 UTC.

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 18 February 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was passed at the Council meeting on Thursday, 18 February 2010. Motion on the Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the AoC Accountability and Transparency RT as amended. WHEREAS, in furtherance of ICANN's responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitments, applicants are being sought to volunteer to serve on the review team for Accountability and Transparency <link to http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03feb10-en.htm >; WHEREAS, the Accountability and Transparency review team will include members endorsed by the GNSO in its efforts; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to adopt a one-time process to provide endorsements for applicants to serve on the first Accountability and Transparency review; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the Endorsement Process described in the attached document http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-nominees-process-proposal-10f… is hereby approved; RESOLVED FURTHER, that each Stakeholder Group and the GNSO Council Nominating Committee appointees should immediately commence their selection processes in accordance with the Endorsement Process; RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is directed to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the Accountability and Transparency review team; RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council shall form an Evaluation Team made up of one Councilor from each SG plus one Nominating Committee Appointee in its meeting on 18 February to assess the responses and report to the Council list not later than 10 March or 14 March; RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is directed to schedule a Special Council Teleconference call on 15, 16 or 17 March at a time that maximizes Councilor participation for the purpose of finalizing GNSO endorsements; RESOLVED FURTHER, the Affirmation of Commitments Review Drafting Team is requested to continue its work to develop a longer-term process for Council consideration in April. The motion passed by a roll call vote. 18 Votes in favour 6 votes in favour Contracted Parties House Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer, Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis. Absent: Terry Davis NCA 12 votes in favour Non Contracted Parties House Zahid Jamil, Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Rafik Dammak, Rosemary Sinclair, Debra Hughes, Mary Wong, Wendy Seltzer, Bill Drake, and Olga Cavalli. One abstention Mike Rodenbaugh- reason to be provided An evaluation team was formed consisting of: Adrian Kinderis - Registrar Stakeholder Group Caroline Greer - gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Commercial Stakeholder Group Bill Drake - Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Olga Cavalli - NCA Margie Milam - Policy Staff support 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

FW: AoC A&T Review Teams
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

Note the request from Janis regarding Kristina's question in today's Council meeting. Chuck ________________________________ From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Peter Dengate-Thrush' Cc: 'Marco Lorenzoni'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Cavalli, Olga' Subject: RE: AoC A&T Review Teams Chuck I can speak for myself only: There have been comments that SO/AC chairs should abstain from presenting their candidatures to the RTs. There isn’t any formal provision which would prevent chairs to be candidates. Especially, when the Chair of the GAC is a member of the RT ex officio. In order to ensure equal treatment of all Chairs, I am seriously considering to nominate somebody to represent me in the RT. This is, of course, subject of sufficient number and quality of governmental candidates for the RTs. Best regards JK From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: ceturtdiena, 2010. gada 18. februārī 22:21 To: Peter Dengate-Thrush; Janis Karklins Cc: Marco Lorenzoni; Stéphane Van Gelder; Cavalli, Olga Subject: AoC A&T Review Teams Peter/Janis, The following question was raised in the GNSO Council meeting today regarding your final selection of AoC A&T Review Team members: Is there any anticipation that leaders in an SO or AC (councilors, chairs, etc.) would be eliminated from consideration for the RT? I stated that I was unaware of any restrictions like this, but said I would ask the two of you. For your information, there are differences of opinion on this issue in the GNSO. BTW, thanks for the extension of time. Chuck Gomes

1 1

Remote participation for Nairobi from ICANN's Senior Director for Participation and Engagement (Nick Ashton-Hart)
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

See below for information on remote participation. In particular for those running sessions see the section called "How everyone can help" From: http://blog.icann.org/2010/02/remote-participation-for-nairobi-details-avai… Remote Participation for Nairobi: Details Available by Nick Ashton-Hart on February 16, 2010 As some of you will have already noticed, remote participation details are in the process of being posted on the ICANN Nairobi site. Work on the remote participation for Nairobi began for me on the first day of December when I took up the post of Senior Director for Participation and Engagement, as the Board's Public Participation Committee asked me to propose the suite of remote participation options for Nairobi. They, and the staff, clearly understood that we would likely see a considerable increase in the use of remote participation in Nairobi. What was proposed, and after consultation with the PPC and internally with the Meetings team and other colleagues, was a different underlying approach. That approach is based upon the following principles: A more standardised approach ============================ - we've divided up the different sessions into classes, and then given each class of meeting a set of basic services in common. We've ensured flexibility by adding to this a set of additional services available on request. Where that doesn't provide enough flexibility and where special needs exist, additional services can be requested. For example, where a key presenter at a session is unable to attend the physical meeting, we've had good results with them attending via Skype, with their audio connected to the public address system and video displayed onscreen. This standardisation provides participants with advance notice of what they can expect as remote participants (and as a result they can then plan their attendance further in advance) and allows ICANN to announce remote participation for all meetings much earlier. If you are interested in seeing the matrix of services to see how different classes of sessions' remote participation needs have been accommodated, you can retrieve it in PDF format here: http://nbo.icann.org/remote-services-matrix. A more level playing field for participants irrespective of the bandwidth they have. ==================================================================================== Both those with high bandwidth connections and those with more limited connections will find tools available to help them participate remotely. We've also reduced the bandwidth required for many services and provided more flexible choices for remote participants. For example, participants are able to choose a low-bandwidth streaming audio feed (for those sessions that support streaming audio) that requires 75% less bandwidth than it did at previous meetings. Work to create a more equivalent experience between those participating 'in the room' at a session and those outside. ===================================================================================================================== Several measures have been taken to help integrate remote participants on a more equal level to those in the room. Everyone knows that there are many elements to a meeting that cannot be experienced remotely but ICANN is working to 'narrow the gap' between those in the room and those who are not. Services should be designed in a way that does not require the installation of software on the remote participant's computer or device, and which provides the same features on all supported operating systems or platforms. ============================================================================= This is for several reasons, amongst them being: the need to allow people on devices as diverse as mobile handhelds, office computers, the use of many different operating systems across the ICANN community - and most importantly, so that everyone is treated equally. Wherever possible and reasonable, we look for open source / open standards-based products and systems. In order to create a more coherent virtual attendance experience, all services will be setup per room, not per session. ======================================================================================================================= Amongst other benefits, this makes it easier for participants to bookmark URLs for remote participation services. It also helps give remote participation an underlying relationship to the physical meeting, as the remote participation 'rooms' in Adobe Connect, for example, have the same names as the physical meeting rooms do. Monitoring Services during Sessions. =================================== A key part of ensuring the remote participation experience works well is ensuring that services are monitored - from a technical perspective but also in respect of the participants' experience. In order to do this, technical staff in-room will be connected to the chatroom for meetings with chat facilities so that remote participants can identify problems they experience (for example, that audio volume is too low for certain speakers on audio streams). Services Offered ================= For details on the services available in Nairobi, look at the Remote Participation Services page at http://nbo.icann.org/remote-participation. It is worth noting that remote participation depends upon the Internet to work, in much the same way as the work of ICANN depends upon it day in and day out. If there is an Internet service outage at the venue, for example, that will mean an outage for all remote participants until connectivity is restored. How Everyone Can Help ====================== The best technical provisions can only get us so far. Remote participation requires those in the room to be a part of making remote participants' contributions valuable: ■Leading or organising a session in Nairobi? Ensure you remember to include remote participants' questions and comments on an equal basis to in-room participants ■Presenting at a session? Ensure your materials are sent to the Staff 48 hours in advance, so remote participants can retrieve them and so they are ready for presentation in the Adobe Connect 'virtual meeting'. ■Attending sessions, either remotely or in person? Join the chatroom for all the sessions you attend - engage with the other attendees. If you are physically present, help bring the views of remote participants to the attention of those in the room, especially if that room doesn't have a member of staff tasked with attending the chatroom to raise remote participants' perspectives. Resources and Links We've put together a selection of resources related to remote participation, with more to come. Here's a selection of URLs that should be useful ■Remote Participation Services Matrix: http://nbo.icann.org/remote-services-matrix ■Explanation of Remote Participation Services and Concepts: http://nbo.icann.org/remote-participation ■Feedback address for participants: remote-participation(a)icann.org ■Remote Participation Summary in presentation format: Nairobi Remote Participation Summary Stay tuned, there will be more details coming soon.

1 0

FW: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

Forwarded From: Rosemary To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga Subject: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting Glen I think I have made the right changes - 2am here - would youpost this doc for me pls? Cheers Rosemary -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thu 2/18/2010 1:16 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga Subject: RE: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting Here's the redline version I sent earlier in the week. If no one objects, let's post a clean version of this and send it to the Council ASAP. Glen - Can you do that? If someone want to make changes, please do so. I am about to head to the airport so will not be able to do much for a few hours. Don't wait for me. Chuck ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:23 AM To: William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga Subject: RE: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting I proposed a final version and was waiting for feedback from others on this list. If you are okay with what I did, please distribute it Bill in Rosemary's absence (she is not available until Thursday her time). If not, make any changes and send it. I am traveling today and will have limited email access. Chuck ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:58 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga Subject: Re: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting This is on the agenda for tomorrow's call, shouldn't we send it to the Council to see prior? 1. New gTLD Implementation &EOI Discussion of any specific and actionable recommendations on, for example: *any remaining concerns with respect to geographic & property protections *the utility of the studies proposed by the GAC, and the foreseen negative effects if they are not completed pre-launch *how categorization could work[Gomes, Chuck] I know there are some in the GAC, in particular Bertrand, who still are pushing this, but I don't think it has much of chance to be considered so I think it would be a poor use of time and could take a lot of time as well. If they bring it up, we cannot avoid that but I would not recommend we bring it up. *desirable fee structures *desired timeline for the roll out of new gTLDs I was listing topics GAC has raised as indicators of the pool from which we could draw. Obviously there won't be able to discuss all of these irrespective of whether there are two topics or three. In that context, I didn't think it was up to us to judge which we considered meritorious or likely to go anywhere, as some government might object to us pruning. But if people think doing so is ok in terms of sensitivities and optics, fine by me. 2. Affirmation of Commitments Discussion of perspectives on: *the meaning of public interest in relation to ICANN's identity and mission *the operationalization of public interest standards in relation to the work programs of ICANN's various bodies *specific accountability and transparency considerations with respect to GNSO's policy dev process 3. ICANN in the Wider International Environment Discussion of the relationship to ICANN in general and to GAC policies and principles in particular of: *the ongoing intergovernmental discussions (e.g. in the ITU and CSTD[Gomes, Chuck] what is CSTD ) The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2696 concerning Enhanced Cooperation on Globally Applicable Public Policy Principles *the various other proposals that have been advanced in the ITU and could be taken up by its October 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference concerning, e.g. the provision of registry services, the harmonization and coordination of ccTLD policies, internationalized domain names, the interface between international laws and treaties and Internet governance, security and stability, dispute resolution, and so on I cut nondiscrimination, that's more about traffic than ICANN Shall we send this to council and get some feedback?

2 1

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 18 February 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 18 February, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20100218.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Plan for the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting in Nairobi
by William Drake Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

Hi, Further to discussions among a few of us, here's some draft text for consideration. When we have something stable this can be folded into a doc Rosemary has assembled with background information etc. Best, Bill ——————— Draft Plan for the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting in Nairobi GNSO Proposal for the Joint Meeting The GAC proposed the first two subject areas below and the third was suggested in the GNSO. Each could be discussed for up to 20 minutes, or we could select two of the three to discuss for a half hour each. Included below are examples of the kinds of questions we might consider addressing under each heading. 1. New gTLD Implementation and Expressions of Interest a. Clarification questions from the GNSO: i. Do GAC members have any remaining concerns with respect to geographic and intellectual property protections? ii. The GAC proposed that some additional studies be conducted before new gTLDs are launched; what negative effects, if any, could be foreseen if such studies are not completed before the launch? iii. The GAC has questioned the desirability of a single fee structure for new gTLDs. How might variable fees affect market entry and the larger Internet environment? How would they impact the distribution and recovery of costs? iv. The GAC has raised a number of concerns about the suitability and time frame of the EOI model. Does it have specific suggestions as to how the model could be improved, or a superior alternative model to suggest? b. Questions or comments from GAC members: 2. The Affirmation of Commitments a. Clarification questions from the GNSO: i. How would GAC members define the meaning of the ”public interest” in relation to ICANN's identity and mission? ii. Do GAC members have any specific suggestions on how ICANN's various bodies, such as the GNSO, could more effectively embody public interest standards in their work programs? iii. Do GAC members have any thoughts or expectations regarding the relevance to the GNSO's policy development process of any recommendations that may be advanced by the AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team? b. Questions or comments from GAC members 3. ICANN in the Wider International Environment a. Discussion questions from the GNSO: i. Can GAC members explain the relationship to ICANN in general and to the GAC principles in particular of the ongoing intergovernmental discussions (e.g., in the ITU and CSTD) concerning Enhanced Cooperation on Globally Applicable Public Policy Principles? ii. Can GAC members help us to understand the objectives and prospects of the various other proposals that have been advanced in the ITU (some of which could be taken up by its October 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference) concerning such topics as the provision of registry services, the harmonization and coordination of ccTLD policies, internationalized domain names, the interface between international laws and treaties and Internet governance, security and stability, IPV6, dispute resolution, and so on? b. Questions or comments from GAC members *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

2 2

Late changes to motion for today's meeting
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

Because the pending announcement of another extension to the AoC AT RT applicant deadline, I inserted some redlined possibilities in the motion for considering in today's call. See the attached file. I believe that the process is fine without any changes. Let me know if that is not the case. The Action Plan needs some edits. I am not sure I will have time to get to those before the meeting. Can someone else do that? Note that the actual extension dates may still be in flux but I believe we can safely assume the application deadline will be extended until at least 7 March. Chuck

2 2