May 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Public Comment: Meetings for the Next Decade Consultation Process Opens
by Glen de Saint Géry 22 May '10

22 May '10

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21may10-en.htm Public Comment: Meetings for the Next Decade Consultation Process Opens 21 May 2010 As ICANN enters its second decade, the time is right to look at the meetings ICANN holds each year from a holistic and truly bottom-up perspective, to ensure that ICANN meetings optimally serve the community in the most cost-effective and stakeholder-focussed ways possible. For that reason, ICANN is pleased to announce the beginning of Stage One of the "Meetings for the Next Decade" consultation process. This consultation consists of a detailed survey, in six languages, available at the link below. Responses may be entered until 23:59 UTC on 5 July 2010. Respondents may also send a comment in to a traditional email-based comment forum where they believe that the survey misses a point that's important, or where they wish to convey the views of a group or organisation with respect to the questions the survey addresses. The survey does allow for a response to be made on behalf of an organisation, as well as by community members speaking in their individual capacity. The consultation is a part of the work programme of the ICANN Board's Public Participation Committee and at the staff level is a joint effort of the ICANN Meetings department and the Senior Director for Participation and Engagement. For more information about the consultation and consultation process, please refer to the Meetings for the Next Decade microsite, at http://www.icann.org/en/meetings2010/. Take the survey now at: https://www.bigpulse.com/33025/register. References Meetings for the Next Decade Microsite: http://www.icann.org/en/meetings2010/ ICANN Board Public Participation Committee ("PPC"): http://www.icann.org/en/committees/participation/

1 0

RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
by Tim Ruiz 21 May '10

21 May '10

I agree with Stephane for the most part. But actually, the dinners are a meeting of three bodies - Council, Board, and Staff. Council has numerous opportunities to interact with Staff, as does Staff with the Board, at F2F meetings or virtully. I hope Staff will not take this the wrong way, but it might be helpful if there were less Staff at these dinners (not zero, just less). That would allow for more interaction between Council and Board members, at the tables or otherwise. Clearly, time with the Board's will be in high demand at these meetings. However, Council is responsible for managing the policy making process of the largest, most active, and most prolific SO within ICANN. Shouldn't making time for meaningful F2F interaction between these two bodies be a priority? I like Bruce's suggestion of a mix of formal/informal work. And we should avoid topics that are more or less just an oppotunity for parties on various sides of an issue to vent/air their arguments (VI, for example). Topics should perhaps focus on issues related to how Council/Board interact, issues/concerns Board/Council may have regarding use/availability of Staff resources, budget for GNSO policy activities, AoC issues, etc. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Fri, May 21, 2010 9:09 am To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major decision-making bodies. I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting the people from each body talking to each other. Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps make organisations work. Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often easier for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates into real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work sessions. As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended helped take away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council and working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board members, I found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten that in a more formal setting. I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil the internal workings of the organisation. Stéphane Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit : > > Hello All, > > > >>> I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is excellent. > To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for > interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them > disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel they > should go. > > > Well here are some issues that get raised: > > - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so > some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate > attention > > - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion > about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that > the Board will be making a decision on that week? > > - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be > endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus > support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy > matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO - the > GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take > sides. > > There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not > aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials > provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the > particular issue. > > > Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g A > period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in > advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the > documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is perhaps > optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding of > the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were doing > the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy > discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some > barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to > better results the following day. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > >

1 0

RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
by Tim Ruiz 21 May '10

21 May '10

GAC/GNSO - Are we picking one, or are they suggesting we discuss them all if time permits? If the latter, is the list in priority order? And either way, it would be helpful if they could be more specific on AoC, RAA, and IDN ccPDP. Those very broad topics. We could spend hours on any one of them. ccNSO/GNSO - Agree. Numerous stakeholders have expressed concerned about how involved ICANN wants to get with this. Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting - Will reply to this on the other thread. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 7:18 pm To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> It is time for us to start thinking about discussion topics for our three regular joint meetings in Brussels: 1) GAC/GNSO meeting; 2) Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting; and 3) ccNSO/GNSO meeting. To get discussion going, I listed some ideas below. GAC/GNSO meeting Janis suggested the following with my comments in parentheses: · DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively discussion) · AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews · RAA (I believe that this is one where there is common interest in discussing) · IDN ccPDP (I don’t think this is very useful from a GNSO point of view, but maybe I am missing something) Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting · There are rumblings that there are some on the Board who think this meeting has outlived its usefulness; in light of that, it might be useful to discuss the value or lack of value from both the GNSO and Board/Staff perspective. ccNSO/GNSO meeting · DNS-CERT Please comment on the above and feel free to suggest new topics. I promised Janis and Chris I would get back to them. Thanks, Chuck

2 1

FW: [soac-discussion] Process to add sessions to the public schedule of the Brussels meeting less than 15 days before the meeting opens
by Gomes, Chuck 21 May '10

21 May '10

Please note the attached process for handling proposed late changes to the meeting schedule for Brussels, with review and possible revision afterwards. Chuck

1 0

RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
by Rosemary Sinclair 21 May '10

21 May '10

Hi Chuck, Re Board dinner - as a newish Council Member I found great value in an opportunity to meet Board and Senior Staff - and to have the opportunity for Board comments focused on GNSO issues... Given Council discussion on Motion from Edmon last night and work I am doing on a Workshop on Consumer Interests for Brussels I would be interested to hear more from Board what they understand by the AoC commitment to (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; with a particular focus on GNSO work and that's just me...... Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 Email: rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au <mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au> Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 10:46 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels It is time for us to start thinking about discussion topics for our three regular joint meetings in Brussels: 1) GAC/GNSO meeting; 2) Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting; and 3) ccNSO/GNSO meeting. To get discussion going, I listed some ideas below. GAC/GNSO meeting Janis suggested the following with my comments in parentheses: * DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively discussion) * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews * RAA (I believe that this is one where there is common interest in discussing) * IDN ccPDP (I don't think this is very useful from a GNSO point of view, but maybe I am missing something) Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting * There are rumblings that there are some on the Board who think this meeting has outlived its usefulness; in light of that, it might be useful to discuss the value or lack of value from both the GNSO and Board/Staff perspective. ccNSO/GNSO meeting * DNS-CERT Please comment on the above and feel free to suggest new topics. I promised Janis and Chris I would get back to them. Thanks, Chuck

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions 20 MAY 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 May '10

20 May '10

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were passed during the Council meeting today, 20 May 2010. Please note that the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) has been revised with the proposed amendment. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards. Glen 1. Proposed motion - Prioritization Project List Made by: Olga Cavalli seconded by: Jaime Wagner WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution and timeline<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions> 21 april motions<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions> to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT); WHEREAS, the first step in the GNSO Work Prioritization timeline called for the ICANN Policy Staff to produce, on or before 30 April 2010, a recommendation of those GNSO projects that should be considered Eligible and Ineligible for the Work Prioritization effort; WHEREAS, the ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf>(v1.0), http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf including aCover Letter<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-proje…>,on 30 April 2010; http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-proje… NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts and approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Project List (v1.0) for use in all remaining steps of the Work Prioritization timeline that, upon completion, is intended to culminate in a set of approved GNSO project ratings and priorities at the ICANN meeting in Brussels. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 2 Motion to approve the GNSO Council's expectations about size and composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' and to approve the GNSO Council's response to the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: Caroline Greer Whereas: * On 22 April 2010, the chair of the GAC was requesting comment from the GNSO regarding the size and composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' * On 26 April 2010, ICANN Staff was requesting comment from the GNSO regarding the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' The GNSO council: * Asks that both Review Teams shall be staffed with 4 GNSO representatives * Asks the GNSO council chair to forward his comments made in response to the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy'to the relevant ICANN body. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 3. Proposed motion to adopt a Charter for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Olga Cavalli as amended (to the charter itself) to the amended charter Whereas, on 1 April 2010, the GNSO Council resolved to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SOâs) and Advisory Committee (ACâs) to fulfill an ICANN Board request (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20>) to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; Whereas, the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) has since been launched and has drafted a Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-jas-wg-charter-12may10-en.htm for the WG activities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-jas-wg-charter-12may10-en.htm for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG); Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Liaison for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG), Rafik Dammak, shall inform the WG of this resolution within 48 hours of its adoption. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 20 May 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 May '10

20 May '10

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 20 May, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20100520.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

IDNG Motion
by Gomes, Chuck 20 May '10

20 May '10

Please note the following from DAG3 that is pertinent from a substance point of view regarding the IDNG motion under consideration by the Council today. I added the yellow highlighting and the bold font for emphasis of what I think are critical points in the current DAG. 2.1.1.1 String Similarity Review This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD string against existing TLDs and against other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to prevent user confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS. The review is to determine whether the applied-for gTLD string is so similar to one of the others that it would create a probability of detrimental user confusion if it were to be delegated into the root zone. The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of similarity. This similarity review will be conducted by an independent String Similarity Panel. Here's the URL for DAG3: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf As you can see, Staff has already included the factor of 'detrimental user confusion'. I believe that is the key issue that the IDNG identified and wanted to ensure proper handling in initial evaluation process. It seems to me that the above language tasks the independent String Similarity Panel to evaluate not only visual similarity in the initial evaluation but also whether in cases of string similarity whether there is the probability of detrimental user confusion. One thing the Council could do is ask Staff if this is a correct conclusion. If so, then I think the concern communicated by the IDNG is at least partially addressed, because I believe that this evaluation step would appropriately satisfy the GNSO recommendations. But the question still arises as to whether there should be some sort of appeal mechanisms for applicants when there strings are denied in the string similarity initial evaluation step. That does not appear to be the case now because extended evaluation is not permitted for string similarity decisions. I hope this helps regarding the substance of the motion and what I think is the intent of the IDNG. I am not sure whether it helps in any way regarding the process issues that have been raised. Chuck

3 3

RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Tim Ruiz 20 May '10

20 May '10

> But wont the community have an opportunity to > comment later (with respect to the IDNG issue)? That's what I would like to find out. If the recommendation will make it in DAGv4 that does at least provide an opportunity for community to review and respond. > Determining which work of the community for the > community is going to be completed is not very > much different from directing changes to the DAG > or creating policy. > > You are controlling what will be done or won't > be done either way! > > This is a horribly slippery slope but I don't > think you can cast stones at one process and say > it is "different" from others. We're not deciding what is going to be completed, only in what priority, and even then with at least SG input through the Councilors as you noted. When specific work commences, broader input will be sought on the specific issue before recommendations come back to the Council. Why is that a slippery slope? This is what we've been doing all along. I'm not arguing that there isn't a line somewhere, I just don't think it's clear where the line is and we should probably consider that going forward. > Did I use up my cliché quota yet? Yes, but when we're stuck between a rock and a hard place it's okay to try and avoid extra innings by punting. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 9:21 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> But wont the community have an opportunity to comment later (with respect to the IDNG issue)? Determining which work of the community for the community is going to be completed is not very much different from directing changes to the DAG or creating policy. You are controlling what will be done or won't be done either way! This is a horribly slippery slope but I don't think you can cast stones at one process and say it is "different" from others. Did I use up my cliché quota yet? Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 12:16 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG Exactly, where do we draw the line. But given your line of reasoning, why do we bother getting community input on anything then? Or you implying that we shouldn't? The Council prioritizing its work (which comes from the community) is much different than creating policy, directing changes to the DAG, or other decisions that affect stakeholders that may or may not be represented in the SGs of the GNSO. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 9:01 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Is the Community not represented, by default, in the makeup of the Council? Isn't their voice heard that way? Where do you draw the line? I will be abstaining on the vote of "work prioritisation" as the staff list was not put out for public comment. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2010 11:58 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG Council formed a drafting team in this case, but it's the same issue. Regardless, there is a historical expectation on the part of the community. We need to consider how that should be applied here, and going forward to avoid this issue. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG From: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 8:25 am To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Are we rally talking about PDP issues rather than revising the DAGv4 which I understand is the execution of a former PDP? Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Mai 2010 14:25 An: Stéphane_Van_Gelder Cc: Jeff Neuman; GNSO Council Betreff: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG This is not about whether Council motions should be put out for public comment, or even about setting that precendent. Normal procedures for PDPs or WTs is that some opportunity for public comment/input is provided along the way - constituency statements, initial reports, etc. In this case that was not provided for, and I take Jeff's suggestion that the motion go out for public comment as simply a way to resolve the concern, or what he feels is missing, in this particular case. In our consideration of this I think it would help if Staff can let us know how this recommendation would likely be handled if we approve the motion as is. Will the recommendation make it into DAGv4? If so, and it is specifically spelled out as one of the changes in the announcement of DAGv4, then that might resolve the concern with providing an opportunity for public comment. One way or the other though, this change certainly should not find its way in the final applicant guidebook without an opportunity for the community to review and comment on it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 3:46 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> I agree this is something we should discuss. I also have concerns, but those are more to do with my own understanding of the way the Council should act, and the challenges to that that Jeff's note brings. Of particular interest to me is his assertion that Council should put out this motion for public comment. I do not recall ever seeing Council's ability to act on properly submitted motions (such as this one) without first putting said motion out for public comment questioned in this way. If I understand Jeff's meaning correctly, he is suggesting that Council's decision-making process be slowed down to include, at every step, the possibility for public comment. While I understand the rationale, I think that Council is tasked with leading the GNSO and that doing what I understand Jeff to be suggesting would render Council ineffective in doing so. There is plenty of opportunity for community input built into the Council procedures as is, I don't think that our motions should be put out to public comment before we vote on them. What would that mean to our timelines anyway? That we would submit a motion, then wait 30 days for public comments, then have staff process them, then read the process report, then discuss the motion again...? I respect Jeff's opinion greatly, and think that he is able to provide the Council with input that we should take on board, not least because of his heavy involvement in the GNSO restructure effort which has undoubtedly given him a great deal of clarity of vision into our processes. But I am wary of what I understand Jeff to be suggesting here, because I think it will effectively stall Council function. I am copying Jeff so that he may correct me if I have understood what he is suggesting incorrectly. Stéphane Le 20 mai 2010 à 09:33, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> a écrit : > > I've not yet process concerns. But we should try to solve the procedural issue in general. > > > Regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Mai 2010 22:00 > An: tim(a)godaddy.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Betreff: Re: [council] Motion from IDNG > > > It is now. > > I have similar process concerns. I also have substance concerns. > > > ------Original Message------ > From: Tim Ruiz > To: GNSO Council > ReplyTo: Tim Ruiz > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG > Sent: May 19, 2010 3:52 PM > > > Chuck, > > Some of the Councilors, including myself, were copied on a letter from > Jeff Neuman to the Council regarding this motion. Is that going to > posted to the Council list? I'd like an opportunity to discuss it and > understand others' thoughts on it. > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 2:09 pm > To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)registry.asia>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > I agree with Avri's response. > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- >> council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung >> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:50 PM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG >> >> >> Hi Kristina, >> Forwarding a note from Avri who helped write the document: >> >> >> Hi Edmon - >> >> On 19 May 2010, at 10:12, Rosette, Kristina wrote: >> >>> Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is >> the >> applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the >> strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement >> between the >> applicant and the operator of the prior string? >> >> >> My single person opinion. >> >> I think that is pretty much up to the determination of the extended >> panel. >> Obviously the second example shows that it does not need to be the same >> entity. It would be up to the panel to figure out whether > > ------Original Message Truncated------ > >

1 0

Fwd: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Stéphane Van Gelder 20 May '10

20 May '10

Message sent on behalf of Jeff Neuman. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date : 20 mai 2010 13:25:43 HAEC > À : "'stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com'" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Objet : Rép : AW: [council] Motion from IDNG > > Thanks Stephane. To clarify. Gnso council motions should not be put out for public comment. > > However, most of the the time, the substance of what is behind a motion regarding policy has been put out for public comment PRIOR to the council ever crafting a motion in the first place. Normally that is done by a working group, work team, etc. > > Here, the substance was never put out for comment and therefore because the substance of the motion was never put out to the public for input, it needs to be put out now. > > My point is that we should have never gotten to this point where the council is looking at a motion based on on a policy that was never commented on by the public. > > I hope that helps. > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > Vice President, Law & Policy > NeuStar, Inc. > Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Thu May 20 04:46:05 2010 > Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG > > I agree this is something we should discuss. I also have concerns, but those are more to do with my own understanding of the way the Council should act, and the challenges to that that Jeff's note brings. > > Of particular interest to me is his assertion that Council should put out this motion for public comment. I do not recall ever seeing Council's ability to act on properly submitted motions (such as this one) without first putting said motion out for public comment questioned in this way. If I understand Jeff's meaning correctly, he is suggesting that Council's decision-making process be slowed down to include, at every step, the possibility for public comment. While I understand the rationale, I think that Council is tasked with leading the GNSO and that doing what I understand Jeff to be suggesting would render Council ineffective in doing so. > > There is plenty of opportunity for community input built into the Council procedures as is, I don't think that our motions should be put out to public comment before we vote on them. What would that mean to our timelines anyway? That we would submit a motion, then wait 30 days for public comments, then have staff process them, then read the process report, then discuss the motion again...? > > I respect Jeff's opinion greatly, and think that he is able to provide the Council with input that we should take on board, not least because of his heavy involvement in the GNSO restructure effort which has undoubtedly given him a great deal of clarity of vision into our processes. But I am wary of what I understand Jeff to be suggesting here, because I think it will effectively stall Council function. > > I am copying Jeff so that he may correct me if I have understood what he is suggesting incorrectly. > > Stéphane > > Le 20 mai 2010 à 09:33, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> a écrit : > >> >> I've not yet process concerns. But we should try to solve the procedural issue in general. >> >> >> Regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Mai 2010 22:00 >> An: tim(a)godaddy.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Betreff: Re: [council] Motion from IDNG >> >> >> It is now. >> >> I have similar process concerns. I also have substance concerns. >> >> >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Tim Ruiz >> To: GNSO Council >> ReplyTo: Tim Ruiz >> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG >> Sent: May 19, 2010 3:52 PM >> >> >> Chuck, >> >> Some of the Councilors, including myself, were copied on a letter from >> Jeff Neuman to the Council regarding this motion. Is that going to >> posted to the Council list? I'd like an opportunity to discuss it and >> understand others' thoughts on it. >> >> Tim >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG >> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 2:09 pm >> To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)registry.asia>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> >> I agree with Avri's response. >> >> Chuck >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- >>> council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:50 PM >>> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >>> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG >>> >>> >>> Hi Kristina, >>> Forwarding a note from Avri who helped write the document: >>> >>> >>> Hi Edmon - >>> >>> On 19 May 2010, at 10:12, Rosette, Kristina wrote: >>> >>>> Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is >>> the >>> applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the >>> strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement >>> between the >>> applicant and the operator of the prior string? >>> >>> >>> My single person opinion. >>> >>> I think that is pretty much up to the determination of the extended >>> panel. >>> Obviously the second example shows that it does not need to be the same >>> entity. It would be up to the panel to figure out whether >> >> ------Original Message Truncated------ >> >> >

1 0