May 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Tim Ruiz May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

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------ > >

3 2

RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Tim Ruiz May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

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------ > >

3 2

RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Tim Ruiz May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

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------ > >

4 3

Motion from IDNG
by Edmon Chung May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

Hi Everyone, After much discussion at the IDNG Drafting Team, and as updated in previous council meetings, we have identified a particular issue related to (but not exclusively caused by) IDN TLDs. Below is a proposed motion for the council's consideration (also attached). Edmon ================================ 1.0 Background In the GNSO Council’s final report to the Board regarding the introduction of new gTLDs (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm ), Recommendation 2 states, “Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name.” In the latest version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 3 (DAG3), which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf, the String Review step in the Initial Evaluation process includes a test to determine “Whether the applied-for gTLD string is so similar to others that it would cause user confusion” (Section 2.1). Section 2.1.1.1 goes on to describe the String Similarity Review as follows: “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.” In its work on the topic of internationalized generic top level domain names (gTLDs), the GNSO IDNG Drafting Team (DT) discovered what it believes is a possible missing element in the String Similarity Review process that may be critical in achieving the objectives of GNSO Recommendation 2. The DT discussed various circumstances where strings that may be designated as visually similar may not be detrimentally similar and believes that both factors must be considered in the initial string similarity review as well as in any subsequent reviews that may occur as a part of dispute resolution procedures if those occur. The IDNG DT identified two cases that illustrate their concern and recognizes that there could be others. The IDNG DT noted that DAG3 does not allow for extended evaluation for the case of initial string evaluation related to the issue of confusing similarity of strings and recommends that the next version of the DAG be modified to do so. That then raises the issue with regard to what criteria should be in the extended evaluation process. 2.0 Proposed Motion Whereas: • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an option for an extended evaluation for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; • The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string; • The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet; • The IDNG Drafting Team also discussed the possibility of creating a Working Group to further discuss the condition under which such non-detrimental similarity could occur and the conditions under which such similarity could be allowed. The Drafting Team was, however, unable to reach consensus on recommending the creation of such a working group at this time. Resolved: The following letter be sent to Kurt Pritz, and copied to the ICANN Board, requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team, CC: ICANN Board The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on String Similarity - Extended Review that parallels other such sections in Module 2. This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be justified for applicants for a string, which has been denied further processing based on visual confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation, to request extended evaluation to evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application that may make the application one where such similarity would not constitute detrimental similarity. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as: • The same registry operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or applied for string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a Letter-Digit-Hyphen (LDH) gTLD in ASCII and a corresponding Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) gTLD that could be deemed to be similar but not cause detrimental confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid. • A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing LDH gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the registry operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be judged to be similar but not detrimentally similar. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO council request.

4 5

RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Gomes, Chuck May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

I forwarded it to the Council list. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:41 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder; Rosette, Kristina; > Caroline Greer > Cc: GNSO Council > Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG > > Thanks Tim (and again, I cannot post to Council list)...so please pass > on. > > I agree with almost everything Tim said except for one item. I believe > that before the GNSO Council passes a motion to approve a > recommendation, as Tim has said, it needs to have had an opportunity > for public comment. Although there may be a future comment period in > the DAG on this, I do not believe that is a cure. When the GNSO > Council passes a motion to a approve a recommendation, it is sending a > message to the Community, Staff and Board, that it ALREADY has broad > community support, which in this case, it does not (YET). We should > not use the easy way out and have the Council approve knowing that it > may go out later for comment as part of the DAG process. > > This is a larger process issue. As Tim stated, normally a working > group, work team, etc., puts it out before the council even starts to > craft a motion on policy. We should not deviate from this important > practice even if it will go out for comment later. After all, every > policy that is passed by the GNSO to the Board will eventually go out > for public comment by the Board before it crafts a resolution. So by > that logic, nothing the council decides relative to policy needs to go > out for comment, because one day the Board will put it out for comment. > > Thanks again for taking this up. > > 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. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:33 AM > To: Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; GNSO Council > Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG > > That makes sense in my opinion Tim. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:25 AM > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder > > Cc: Jeff Neuman; GNSO Council > > Subject: 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(a)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

FW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Gomes, Chuck May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

Here's a response from Jeff regarding Tim's comments. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:41 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder; Rosette, Kristina; Caroline Greer Cc: GNSO Council Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG Thanks Tim (and again, I cannot post to Council list)...so please pass on. I agree with almost everything Tim said except for one item. I believe that before the GNSO Council passes a motion to approve a recommendation, as Tim has said, it needs to have had an opportunity for public comment. Although there may be a future comment period in the DAG on this, I do not believe that is a cure. When the GNSO Council passes a motion to a approve a recommendation, it is sending a message to the Community, Staff and Board, that it ALREADY has broad community support, which in this case, it does not (YET). We should not use the easy way out and have the Council approve knowing that it may go out later for comment as part of the DAG process. This is a larger process issue. As Tim stated, normally a working group, work team, etc., puts it out before the council even starts to craft a motion on policy. We should not deviate from this important practice even if it will go out for comment later. After all, every policy that is passed by the GNSO to the Board will eventually go out for public comment by the Board before it crafts a resolution. So by that logic, nothing the council decides relative to policy needs to go out for comment, because one day the Board will put it out for comment. Thanks again for taking this up. 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. -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:33 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder Cc: Neuman, Jeff; GNSO Council Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG That makes sense in my opinion Tim. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:25 AM > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder > Cc: Jeff Neuman; GNSO Council > Subject: 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(a)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

FW: [REGYCON] Fw: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Gomes, Chuck May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

Here's Jeff's response to Stephane's comments. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 7:27 AM To: REGYCON-L(a)NIC.MUSEUM Subject: [REGYCON] Fw: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG Caroline, Can you make sure this gets posted to Council list as well. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz ----- Original Message ----- From: Neuman, Jeff To: 'stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com' <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu May 20 07:25:43 2010 Subject: Re: 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 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

Re: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Rosette, Kristina May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

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------

4 3

Proposed Council agenda 20 May 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting tomorrow, Thursday, 20 May at 15:00 UTC please find the agenda below and the proposed Brussels draft GNSO related meeting schedule. Please note that the workshops, information and consultation sessions noted during the week are subject to change as the full ICANN schedule is not yet published. Two possible options have been noted in red for the GNSO wrap-up session on Thursday and your input will be welcome. Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 20 May 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-20may10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_20_may_2010 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… 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. Meeting Time 15:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT; 11:00 EDT; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; 16:00 Ireland; 17:00 CET; 19:00 Moscow; 20:00 Pakistan; 23:00 Hong Kong; 00:00 Tokyo, 01:00 Friday Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room*http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/* Please enter as a 'guest'. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * 21 April 2010 meeting - Approved 5 May 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-21apr10-en.htm Item 2: Prioritization GNSO work (15 Minutes) 2.1 Refer to TIMELINE FOR FIRST WORK PRIORITIZATION EFFORT http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-proje… 2.2 Refer to Staff Recommended Projects List GNSO Work Prioritization Project List http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf 2.3 Motion: 20 may motions<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions> 2.4 Discussion 2.5 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) Item 3: GNSO AoC DT Endorsement Process (15 minutes) 3.1 Overview of AoC Endorsement Process (Bill Drake) 3.2 GNSO input requested from Janis Karklins: * Size and composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' * Recommendations from the GNSO AoC Review DT (Bill Drake) * Discussion 3.3.2 GNSO Endorsement Procedures * GNSO AoC Review DT Recommendations (Bill Drake) * Discussion * Motion 20 may motions<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions> (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) 3.4. 3 Next steps? Item 4: IDNG DT Recommendation re. New gTLD Process (15 minutes) 4.1 Report (Edmon Chung) 4.2 Motion: 20 may motions<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions> (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion) 4.3 Discussion 4.4 Vote Item 5: Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (10 minutes) 5.1 Overview of Charter (Olof Nordling) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Motion 20 may motions<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions> 5.3.1 Discussion 5.3.2 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion.) Item 6: Schedule and Agendas for GNSO Brussels Meetings (15 minutes) 6.1 Note that meeting schedule and agendas must be posted not later than 29 May. 6.2 Overview (Stephane Van Gelder) 6.3 Discussion 6.4 Possible Joint SO/AC meeting re. RAA WG (Monday afternoon?) Item 7: AGP Policy questions (10 minutes)* 7.1 Discussion of questions raised by Craig Schwartz in the 21 April Council meeting * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly? For example: o Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? o If a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? 7.2 Next steps? Item 8: Whois Studies (15 minutes) * 8.1 Refer to: * Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… * ICANN's FY11 Draft Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2011 "In accordance with ICANN's bylaws, a draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget will be posted by 17 May 2010 for community feedback." (Note: Public comment period is open.) 8.2 Note the amount in the Draft Budget for Whois Studies: $ 400,000 8.3 Draft Terms of Reference for WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Services "abuse" study 8.3.1 Refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/whois-proxy-abuse-studies-28apr10-en.pdf 8.3.2 Brief overview (Liz Gasster) 8.3.3 Discussion 8.4 Discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies 8.5 Next steps? 8.6 Comments regarding the Draft Operating Plan & Budget from constituencies, SGs & individual GNSO participants are encouraged. Item 9: Other Business (5 minutes) 9.1 Note: It is planned to consider GNSO Improvements OSC recommendations from the CCT and the GCOT in our next meeting on 10 June 2010. Item 10: Status updates (5 minutes) 10.1 Refer to WG/WT/DT status updates: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-20may10-en.htm 10.2 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.? Status updates: Item 11: The updated GNSO Project Status List (5 minutes) 11.1 Refer to Pending Projects List: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 11.1 Questions/comments? ***Note: Agenda items 6 (Whois Studies) & 7 (AGP Policy questions) may need to be delayed in whole or in part if earlier items require more time than what is allotted. Items 2 (Prioritization of GNSO work), 3 (GNSO AoC DT Endorsement Process), 4 (IDNG DT Recommendation re. New gTLD Process) & 5 (Schedule and Agendas for GNSO Brussels Meetings) all require action in this meeting and as such could take more time than what is allocated.** 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 15:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Fw: Open Letter to the GNSO Council: Accountability & Transparency starts at the Bottom
by Rosette, Kristina May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

For those who did not receive the forwarded message. ------Original Message------ From: Jeffrey J. Neuman To: cgomes(a)verisign.com Cc: Mr. Stephane Van Gelder Cc: Olga Cavalli Cc: Caroline Greer Cc: Edmon Chung Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Cc: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Tim Ruiz Cc: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Jeffrey J. Neuman Subject: Open Letter to the GNSO Council: Accountability & Transparency starts at the Bottom Sent: May 19, 2010 2:37 PM Dear members of the GNSO Council, This is being written in my personal capacity, not on behalf of Neustar and not on behalf of the Policy Process Steering Committee or PDP Work Team of which I am the chair. I ask that you send this to the entire council as I do not have posting privileges and there is no public comment period or forum for this issue (which as you will see is one of the issues I discuss below). I am writing to you today to express my concerns about a motion that you will be voting on tomorrow regarding the new gTLD process, particularly with respect to asking the staff to amend the Draft Applicant Guidebook. First at the outset, let me state for the record that I support the substance of the proposals and believe the DAG should be changed. However, despite the fact that I support the substance, I do not support this ad hoc process which I believe is extending the GNSO Council’s role far beyond its role as an administrative coordinating body and into the realm of policy development or at best implementation. I have expressed my concerns to my stakeholder group, but because they support the substance of the motion and are afraid that voting no will somehow detract from the substance, I believe I will be outvoted even though some of those voting in favor do oppose the process which was used. I would have posted my concerns in the public forum for this motion, but none was created. Perhaps this may be an idea for future motions? The IDNG was formed last year to look specifically at the drafting a charter for a working group to look at the issue of whether there should be a fast-track IDN gTLD Process. My understanding was that the drafting team was unable to come to consensus on creating such a working group or what should be in such a charter. At that point, I believe the drafting team should have been disbanded, but that is not my issue for now. The drafting team continued to discuss IDN gTLD issues and came across what the members of the drafting team believed was a flaw in the DAG, one in which they are trying to rectify with this motion. I am glad someone found this flaw and I am glad that the members of the drafting team would like this addressed (as I do). However, the approach the Council is getting ready to take on this is one which sets a dangerous precedent for the future in setting policy at the Council level as opposed to bottom-up. The Council has before it a recommendation from the IDNG to send a note directly to the ICANN staff (and by cc: the ICANN Board) directing it to change the current version of the DAG to address this flaw. Rather than taking that recommendation and putting it out for public comments or opening up a comment forum to address the issues, it is unilaterally proposing to take matters into its own hands and pass this resolution. In doing so, the GNSO Council it will send a message to the ICANN Staff and to the Board, that it is a legislative policy making body as opposed to that of a policy manager/coordinator. I understand that many on the Council believe time is of the essence because the next version of the DAG is supposed to be released in the next couple of weeks. However, please take note that this is not the last opportunity to comment on the DAG. In fact, there is no public comment period to submit this to the staff now anyway. In looking at the Council mailing lists, it appears that changes are still being discussed to the motion and I am afraid it is being rushed through. How can an issue get to the Council and a resolution passed, without ever putting that issue out for a public comment? If Council members do support the substance of the motion (as I do), then the proper thing for the council to do is to encourage those members in support of the substance, including the IDNG Drafting Team, to send a letter on their own behalf to the ICANN staff either now or during a formal public comment period. Or, if it really wants to have a letter come from the Council to the staff, it should put out this motion for public comment until at least the next meeting to get input from the community. However, the Council should not be sending such a letter now to the staff or to the Board without getting such input from the community in which it is supposed to be serving. Doing so creates the false impression that at this point in time the motion has broad community support. It may have such support, but without putting it out for comment, you are not giving those that may oppose an opportunity to be heard. We chastise the ICANN Board for taking such actions, and should lead by example. As someone who is deeply involved in helping to reshape the PDP and WG processes of the future and one who has spent way too much time thinking about this kind of stuff, I believe that if the GNSO Council votes and approves this motion tomorrow, it will be not only going against the very fabric of what the Board Governance Committee stated was the role of the GNSO Council, but will be setting a very bad precedent for bypassing the policy process in the future. Thank you for considering my note. Jeffrey J. Neuman 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