June 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
by Tim Ruiz June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

I'm not too concerned about having only two seats on the Security RT, but strongly oppose accepting only two seats on the Whois. It is perfectly reasonable to allow one seat each to the SSAC, GAC, and ASO. But I think it's totally implausible to assume a well represented RT with only two for the GNSO and one each for the ccNSO and the ALAC. I believe we make a very strong statement insisting that each of those are doubled - four for the GNSO (one for each SG, no less), two each for the ccNSO and the ALAC due to the size of their memberships. That would make the RT 14 members, and that is certainly workable and more realistic. I realize the ALAC and ccNSO can defend themselves, but given the selectors concerns over the team size I think we should respond with a total picture of what we think the RT should look like and why. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 1:44 pm To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Please note what the AoC Selectors have proposed for the next two RTs. Please provide any comments you have on this list. Time permitting, we will also briefly discuss this in meeting on 10 June. Chuck From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Dear colleagues On behalf of Selectors I would like to propose that the size and composition of the two next review teams would be as follows: Security WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent expert 1-2 2 (law enforcement/privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13-14 10 I understand that your initial suggestions/requests were not fully accommodated, but for the sake of efficiency, credibility of the process, budgetary limitations Selectors have developed this proposal. If we would take into account all wishes, the RT size would be over 20 which in Selectors’ view is not credible option. I hope that proposal will be equally unacceptable for everybody. I would appreciate your comments or expression of non-objection in coming week. Only after assessment of the violence of your opposition the Selectors will make their proposal (in present form or modified) public. Best regards JK

11 25

Work Prioritization: Step 2 Status
by Ken Bour June 8, 2010

June 8, 2010

GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: Just a quick update to confirm the ratings spreadsheets received thus far (1700 EST on 7 June) and to let you know that, per a request from the Registrars, the deadline has been extended until 9 June 2010. Councilor Ratings Received: Andrei Kolesnikov Debra Y. Hughes Caroline Greer William J. Drake Terry Davis Mike Rodenbaugh Olga Cavalli Chuck Gomes Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Jaime Wagner Thank you for providing your input to this process! We are about half way completed and hope to receive the remainder of the ratings in the next two days. Again, if anyone needs assistance, please let me know. Thank you, Ken Bour ICANN Policy Staff Consultant Office: 703-430-4059 (EST)

3 2

FW: Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report -- additional redline version attached to highlight changes from initial report
by Liz Gasster June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

All, Attached please find a redline version of the draft final WHOIS Service Requirements Report which highlights the changes made from the Initial Report of 26 March. As described further in the text, the changes were primarily made as a result of input we received from members of the SO/AC community. Again, this is a "draft final" report which we will be discussing in Brussels. Please let Steve Sheng or me know if you think further changes should be made. Thanks to Chuck for suggesting that a redline would be useful. I wish I'd thought of it! :) Liz From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:43 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report attached for your review All, Attached please find a "draft" Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report for your review and discussion. This report includes input we received while soliciting the views of the SOs and ACs. We decided to leave the report as a draft to provide the opportunity for further input in Brussels. Dave Piscitello (and Steve Sheng remotely) will be facilitating a public consultation on the report, tentatively scheduled for Thursday morning at 9:30 Brussels local time. We will finalize the report shortly thereafter. Best regards, Liz

1 0

REMINDER:Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing
by Glen de Saint Géry June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

REMINDER: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27may10-en.htm Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing Meeting Details and How to Participate 27 May 2010 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming Brussels meeting remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Wednesday at 9 June at 13.00 and 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: .GNSO Vertical Integration Policy Development Process .GNSO Improvements .GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process .GNSO WHOIS Studies .ccNSO IDN PDP .ccNSO Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group .ASO Global policy for handling IPv4 address space The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the slides and MP3 will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, 13.00 UTC or 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Internet access at the Meridien *IS* provided
by Alan Greenberg June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

I just received a note from Kevin Wilson saying that in-room Internet is part of the package at the Meridien. The information originally provided by Constituency travel was incorrect. Sorry for starting a panic. Alan

1 0

GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
by Ken Bour June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: In accordance with the Work Prioritization timeline approved by the Council on 21 April 2010, four major steps were identified as follows: Step Dates Activity Status Step 1 30 April - 20 May Staff recommend and Council approve a set of Eligible Projects for the 1st Work Prioritization effort Completed Step 2 21 May - 7 June Individual Councilor ratings completed and delivered to Staff for commonality analysis (18 days) In Progress Step 3 19 June (Brussels) Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings Scheduled Step 4 23 June (Brussels) Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org Scheduled The purpose of this email is to formally launch Step 2, which is to solicit from each GNSO Council member and participating Liaison individual Value ratings for each of the Eligible Projects approved in Step 1. The definition of Value, as provided in the proposed Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) procedures (Chapter 6 and ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ), is quoted below: "Value . this factor relates to perceptions of overall value, benefit, importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANN's stakeholders and the global Internet community. Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited to: new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user experience. " In this task, each Councilor is asked to rate the above Value component for each of the 15 Eligible Projects (see attached spreadsheet) using the following 7-point scale. [Note: the scale is also duplicated in the attachment for ease of reference]. Scale Interpretation 1 Far Below 2 Moderately Below 3 Slightly Below 4 Average 5 Slightly Above 6 Moderately Above 7 Far Above Scale Guideline: As provided in the proposed WPM-DT procedures (ANNEX, Section 2.2 <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ), the following guidelines are intended to assist Council members in developing Value ratings. "Thinking about all Eligible Projects taken together, which one (or more) represents your best perception of AVERAGE in terms of Value as defined in Section 6.3.2. For example, suppose that you happen to think that Project "X" is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value compared to all the others. Once you have "anchored" your perceptual scale in this way, then it is a matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far Below, Moderately Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above, or Far Above that "average" project in terms of this factor. If you find it challenging to decide on an AVERAGE project, consider anchoring at either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project you think is FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value. In this rating process, there are no absolute or independent scale referents -- you are being asked to assess projects RELATIVE to each other." Note: Councilors are encouraged to consult with their organizations to ensure that the ratings reflect the priorities of their groups as much as possible. Instructions: Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template) that you will use to rate each Eligible Project according to your perception of relative Value. Directions are contained inside the template. Please enter your Name in the space provided and the Date you complete the form. Please do not forget to <Save As> the completed form to another name as explained and illustrated inside the spreadsheet. ***Please note that all unshaded cells are protected (i.e. locked) against accidental mistyping; it is also important that the project and value rating sequence be maintained to facilitate data aggregation*** Expected Output: The outcome of this activity, once Staff receives and processes all of your individual ratings, will be an initial statistical assessment of Councilor agreement on the Value ratings. The data will be used as input to the Step 3 group discussion that is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 19 June. If you have questions about any of this material, please feel free to email or call me. I will provide periodic updates to the Council (e.g. 28 May and 4 June) outlining the progress of this activity. Good luck with your ratings! Ken Bour Policy Staff Consultant Email: ken.bour(a)verizon.net Office: 703-430-4059 (USA-Virginia EST)

4 5

FW: [council] Brussels hotel and Internet connectivity
by Gomes, Chuck June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

Kevin, Can you confirm that the information provided by Alan below is correct? (i.e., that Internet access will not be free at recommended hotels except for the Royal Windsor and that charges for it will come out of per diem allowances for ICANN funded travelers) Any other information you can provide in this regard would be appreciated as well. Thanks in advance, Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 5:57 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Brussels hotel and Internet connectivity One more point, the Travel Summary document said that the Meridien and Royal Windsor "are of the same class of service". However, the Royal Windsor's web site says that all guest rooms have free Internet (either wired or wireless). Alan At 05/06/2010 02:30 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I checked with Constituency Travel about whether breakfast and >Internet access were included in the Meridien hotel room prices paid >by ICANN for funded travellers (ALAC is staying there and I >understand GNSO also). > >The answer was that breakfast is included, but Internet access is not. > >According to their web site, the Meridien charges 15 Euros for >in-room access, and that public are access is also charged. That is >about US$18 or 1/4 of the per diem. > >ICANN's standard response in previous situations is that we should >simply go to the conference venue for after-hours access - never a >nice alternative, but clearly not at all practical with a venue >separate from the hotel(s). > >How we are expected to take over a week from our normal lives and not >have after-hours connectivity is a mystery to me. I thought we had >fought this battle before and won. > >ALAC has lodged a strong complaint. The GNSO or individuals within >the GNSO may want to take similar action. > >Alan

1 0

Brussels hotel and Internet connectivity
by Alan Greenberg June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

I checked with Constituency Travel about whether breakfast and Internet access were included in the Meridien hotel room prices paid by ICANN for funded travellers (ALAC is staying there and I understand GNSO also). The answer was that breakfast is included, but Internet access is not. According to their web site, the Meridien charges 15 Euros for in-room access, and that public are access is also charged. That is about US$18 or 1/4 of the per diem. ICANN's standard response in previous situations is that we should simply go to the conference venue for after-hours access - never a nice alternative, but clearly not at all practical with a venue separate from the hotel(s). How we are expected to take over a week from our normal lives and not have after-hours connectivity is a mystery to me. I thought we had fought this battle before and won. ALAC has lodged a strong complaint. The GNSO or individuals within the GNSO may want to take similar action. Alan

3 3

FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
by Gomes, Chuck June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Please note what the AoC Selectors have proposed for the next two RTs. Please provide any comments you have on this list. Time permitting, we will also briefly discuss this in meeting on 10 June. Chuck From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Dear colleagues On behalf of Selectors I would like to propose that the size and composition of the two next review teams would be as follows: Security WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent expert 1-2 2 (law enforcement/privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13-14 10 I understand that your initial suggestions/requests were not fully accommodated, but for the sake of efficiency, credibility of the process, budgetary limitations Selectors have developed this proposal. If we would take into account all wishes, the RT size would be over 20 which in Selectors' view is not credible option. I hope that proposal will be equally unacceptable for everybody. I would appreciate your comments or expression of non-objection in coming week. Only after assessment of the violence of your opposition the Selectors will make their proposal (in present form or modified) public. Best regards JK

1 0

Amendment to IDNG Motion
by Edmon Chung June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Hi Everyone, Based on the discussions we had, and the feedback received from different people, I would like to make a number of changes to the Proposed Motion on New gTLD Recommendation (IDNG motion on clarifications for confusingly similar TLD string). The main change in the motion is the addition of a consideration for a 21 day comment period for the letter before it being sent by the council. Have also made various edits to address concerns raised by different people, including the issue raised by Kristina about potentially conflicting with the IRT report. Attached is a "red-lined" version highlighting the changes. Below is a clean version for consideration. Rafik, I wonder if you would be willing to consider the changes as friendly amendments? :-) Edmon Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2) =================================================== WHEREAS: • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; • The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook; • The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for 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; RESOLVED: • A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy 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 an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". • ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010. • The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter. PROPOSED LETTER: 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 an 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 confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually detrimental. 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 gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the 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 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 their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.

4 7

GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Councillors, The Council chairs have been approached by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team with an enquiry about a possible meeting in Brussels. They told us they are having a public forum session on the Monday afternoon, but that they would also be happy to meet with ACs and SOs directly. They are trying to arrange a meeting with the GNSO SGs, but wanted to know if the Council as a whole was interested in meeting. They are meeting with the Board, the GAC and ALAC on Sunday afternoon and asked whether the GNSO Council could meet with them on Sunday morning. However, it has proven impossible to fit such a meeting into our already very full Brussels agenda without squeezing something else. Therefore, it would be useful to get an idea of whether Councillors think there would be value in meeting with the RT in light of the fact that meetings are already arranged with each SG. In fact, it would also be useful to know which SGs have a meeting planned with the RT. If people do want the Council as a whole to meet with the RT, then the question becomes where can we fit that meeting in our Brussels agenda. On the other hand, if separate SG meetings are being arranged, is there really any need for the Council as a whole to meet with the RT? Stéphane

10 27

FW: [soac-discussion] Updated background reports for Global Policy Proposals for ASNs and recovered IPv4
by Gomes, Chuck June 3, 2010

June 3, 2010

FYI Chuck From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 6:36 AM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: bill manning; woolf(a)isc.org; Louis Lee; secretariat(a)nro.net; Secretary Subject: [soac-discussion] Updated background reports for Global Policy Proposals for ASNs and recovered IPv4 To Chairs of ICANN SOs and ACs, FYI and for information to your membership: Attached are updated Background Reports for the Global Policy Proposal for "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" and for the "Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries". Both background reports will soon be posted on the ICANN website. Very best regards Olof ------------------- Olof Nordling Director, Services Relations ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>

1 0

COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT
by Gomes, Chuck June 3, 2010

June 3, 2010

I am hereby making the following motion in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for our 10 June Council meeting. Please note that on the OSC list the issue of whether the comments submitted in the public comment period (all 4 of them) might create a need to revise the CCT recommendations in some way was raised, but the OSC did not reach any decision one way or the other in that regard. After reviewing the comments myself, it did not appear to me that they would necessitate any changes, so I personally thought it best to go ahead and make the motion. If the Council thinks differently or, if between now and 10 June, the OSC takes a position on that, we can deal with that. But we will at least have the motion on the table so that we can take action if we are ready. Please make the members of your various groups aware of the motion as soon as possible. Thanks to Julie Hedland for drafting the motion. Chuck COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 May 2010 meeting, accepted the deliverable of the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) as its final set of recommendations; WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm> completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis <http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html> has been prepared; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period; NOW, BE IT THEREFORE: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.p df> of the CCT, without further modification, and directs Staff to begin work on implementation. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council accepts the CCT's specific recommendation to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council appreciates the thoughtful feedback of those community members who contributed to the Public Comment Forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/> and directs Staff to consider their suggestions and recommendations during the implementation phase; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby discharges the CCT and expresses its gratitude and appreciation for the team's dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

2 1

JIG updates
by Edmon Chung June 3, 2010

June 3, 2010

Hi Everyone, The JIG had its kick-off meeting on March 30, and started its bi-weekly meeting since April 20 (except for cancelling on the May 4th meeting). The group has identified 3 topics of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLD 2. IDN TLD Variants 3. Universal Acceptability of IDN TLDs The group has received briefing from staff on issue 1, and had discussions regarding issue 2 (still awaiting staff briefing on the issue nevertheless). There will be 1 meeting of the group in Brussels (tentatively scheduled for Sunday June 20, but we are still hoping to coordinate timing so that Tina Dam from staff can join the meeting as her briefing on issue 2 is important for the group's work). In the last meeting, the group discussed the interest to start working on a document from the group for consideration on the 3 issues. Edmon

1 0

Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels
by Gomes, Chuck June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

<<Joint GNSO Meeting Agenda Topics for Brussels.docx>> <<Survey for Board meeting with GNSO in Brussels.docx>> The first attachment above is a summary I created of the suggested topics, names of Councilors who expressed support or opposition for them and excerpts of Councilor comments for the three Council joint meetings scheduled for Brussels. I tried to be thorough and complete in creating this but wouldn't be surprised if I missed some or incorrectly showed support. Please communicate any errors you find. My next step recommendations for each meeting are as follows. GAC/GNSO meeting Recognizing that it will be very unlikely that we can cover all three topics in one hour, I suggest that I send a message to Janis asking him to prioritize the following three topics from his point of view: * DAG 4, including morality and public order * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews * Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Once we get a response from Janis, we solicit Council volunteers to prepare 1-2 minute statements on one or more of the topics that would be communicated as individual or SG/Constituency statements in the meeting. Statements may include questions for the GAC. Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting We develop a survey that Bruce Tonkin may use to solicit individual Board preferences regarding topics they would like to discuss with Councilors in Brussels, noting 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices. I took a first stab at a survey that is contained in the second attachment to this message. Once we get the feedback from Bruce, we will try to assign seating by topic(s) at each table. ccNSO/GNSO meeting I will send a message to Chris Disspain saying that the GNSO Council supports the topic of the DNS-CERT be the main topic of discussion in the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in Brussels with the understanding that the ccNSO may add other topics if desired and that I also proposed a small list of questions in that regard to facilitate discussion. For starters, I suggest the following questions: 1. What are the biggest concerns of ICANN DNS-CERT activities to date? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants 2. How could the ICANN-DNS CERT activities be improved going forward? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants 3. In what ways could the ccNSO and GNSO work together in this area? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants Please feel free to provide feedback on any of the above not later than one week from today, Thursday, 3 June. Using that feedback I will take the next steps as indicated above or as modified per the feedback received. Thanks, Chuck

2 1

status update
by Olga Cavalli June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

*ccNSO * One of our Councillors for the North American region, Keith Drazek recently resigned from his position at NeuStar. His seat on the ccNSO Council has therefore become vacant. A nomination period for our North American members to fill the seat started today and is scheduled to end on the 9th June 2010. For those of you who wish to know more, please see http://ccnso .icann.org/about/elections/call-for-nominations-01jun10-en.htm Archives are available at *http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-nominations * The Anti Phishing Working Group (APWG) has released an update to their phishing survey report. See attachment for more information. *Geo Regions Working Group:* The Geographic Regions Review Working Group (WGGR) is making the latest working draft of its Interim Report available to the community. The draft document can be found on the Socialtext Wiki page of the working group ( http://tinyurl.com/WGGRwiki) at this link - Draft WGGR Interim Report v5 [DOC, 188 KB]. It is still a work-in-progress and is being formally provided to the community solely for discussion purposes and so that WGGR members will have the option to discuss its contents with their respective communities - as well as the general ICANN community - during the Brussels meeting next month. As part of its efforts in Brussels, the WGGR also plans to conduct a public session on Thursday morning (24 June) to discuss the geographic regions framework and collect community ideas about potential future options for the framework. The WGGR has also sponsored a community survey to gather information on the impact and application of the geographic regions framework on various communities within the ICANN ecosystem. All members of the ICANN community are all invited to participate. *OSC CSG working Team:* Recommendations for consituencies and stakeholdergroup´s document has been sent to the OSC for revision. The working team is working now in a document with recommendations for GNSO outreach activities. *Travel drafting team:* There will be a face to face meeting in Brussels with ICANN staff. Main agenda items are: - Possible funding for working team chairs - Possible funding for GNSO outreach activitiers - Possible funding of Fridays if GNSO councillors want to participate in the ICANN Board meeting on Friday morning during ICANN meetings * * * *

1 0

VI WG status report to GNSO Council
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

Councillors, please find below my status report for the VI WG. Vertical Integration Policy Development Process (VI PDP) - Chairs Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor - Council Liaison - Stephane van Gelder - May 10, 2010 The working group has been receiving and examining a number of proposals submitted by members suggesting various implementation guidelines for VI or separation. A plan for delivering a final proposal has been drafted, including dates up to and beyond the Brussels meeting. The WG had a session with economists Salop and Wright to delve further into the rationale for or against VI. A comparison matrix of proposals has been drafted and is being used by the WG to attempt to coalesce around a single proposal, which would be the WG's final proposal. The WG will review both public comments and constituency/SG comments in order to incorporate them in its final proposal. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder

1 1

GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2 (Status)
by Ken Bour June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: As promised in my original email, I would send out interim status reports on Step 2 of the GNSO Work Prioritization effort. I had not received any participant spreadsheets after the first week (28 May), so I decided to wait a bit longer before writing to you. With only 5 days remaining until the deadline (7 June), we still have no submissions, which may only indicate that your work is still in progress. In the event that anyone needs another copy, I am including the original email transmittal (below) and template (attd). If anyone needs assistance in completing this task or more time, please let me know. Thank you, Ken Bour Office: 703-430-4059 (EST) From: owner-gnso-imp-staff(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-imp-staff@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Bour Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:08 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: GNSO; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [gnso-imp-staff] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2 GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: In accordance with the Work Prioritization timeline approved by the Council on 21 April 2010, four major steps were identified as follows: Step Dates Activity Status Step 1 30 April 20 May Staff recommend and Council approve a set of Eligible Projects for the 1st Work Prioritization effort Completed Step 2 21 May 7 June Individual Councilor ratings completed and delivered to Staff for commonality analysis (18 days) In Progress Step 3 19 June (Brussels) Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings Scheduled Step 4 23 June (Brussels) Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org Scheduled The purpose of this email is to formally launch Step 2, which is to solicit from each GNSO Council member and participating Liaison individual Value ratings for each of the Eligible Projects approved in Step 1. The definition of Value, as provided in the proposed Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) procedures (Chapter 6 and ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ), is quoted below: Value this factor relates to perceptions of overall value, benefit, importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANNs stakeholders and the global Internet community. Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited to: new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user experience. In this task, each Councilor is asked to rate the above Value component for each of the 15 Eligible Projects (see attached spreadsheet) using the following 7-point scale. [Note: the scale is also duplicated in the attachment for ease of reference]. Scale Interpretation 1 Far Below 2 Moderately Below 3 Slightly Below 4 Average 5 Slightly Above 6 Moderately Above 7 Far Above Scale Guideline: As provided in the proposed WPM-DT procedures (ANNEX, Section 2.2 <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ), the following guidelines are intended to assist Council members in developing Value ratings. Thinking about all Eligible Projects taken together, which one (or more) represents your best perception of AVERAGE in terms of Value as defined in Section 6.3.2. For example, suppose that you happen to think that Project X is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value compared to all the others. Once you have anchored your perceptual scale in this way, then it is a matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far Below, Moderately Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above, or Far Above that average project in terms of this factor. If you find it challenging to decide on an AVERAGE project, consider anchoring at either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project you think is FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value. In this rating process, there are no absolute or independent scale referents -- you are being asked to assess projects RELATIVE to each other. Note: Councilors are encouraged to consult with their organizations to ensure that the ratings reflect the priorities of their groups as much as possible. Instructions: Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template) that you will use to rate each Eligible Project according to your perception of relative Value. Directions are contained inside the template. Please enter your Name in the space provided and the Date you complete the form. Please do not forget to <Save As> the completed form to another name as explained and illustrated inside the spreadsheet. ***Please note that all unshaded cells are protected (i.e. locked) against accidental mistyping; it is also important that the project and value rating sequence be maintained to facilitate data aggregation*** Expected Output: The outcome of this activity, once Staff receives and processes all of your individual ratings, will be an initial statistical assessment of Councilor agreement on the Value ratings. The data will be used as input to the Step 3 group discussion that is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 19 June. If you have questions about any of this material, please feel free to email or call me. I will provide periodic updates to the Council (e.g. 28 May and 4 June) outlining the progress of this activity. Good luck with your ratings! Ken Bour Policy Staff Consultant Email: ken.bour(a)verizon.net Office: 703-430-4059 (USA-Virginia EST)

1 0

RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
by Tim Ruiz June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

1 0

Rod on Internet governance
by William Drake June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

Hi, This is relevant to the thread about whether to discuss ICANN's strategic response to global Internet governance debates at the Council-Board dinner. In light of all that that has gone on over the past few years and the continuing discontent of a majority of governments with ICANN's constitutional structure, is it enough to simply argue that any departure from the status quo would make ICANN less "nimble"? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/icann-head-warns-against-put…

3 3

Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member
by Glen de Saint Géry June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jun10-en.htm - Review Team 2: Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS - - Review Team 4: Whois Policy - 1 June 2010 The Affirmation of Commitments calls for a periodic review of four key ICANN objectives, namely: 1. Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users; 2. Preserving security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; 3. Promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice; 4. Whois policy. Affirmation reviews are to be performed by Review Teams composed of volunteer community Members representing the relevant Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees of ICANN. A discussion paper on Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes [PDF, 617 KB] is available for full reference. ICANN now invites interested individuals to apply for a position of volunteer Review Team Member on the following Review Teams: * Preserving security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; * Whois policy. This call is solely intended for interested individuals who wish to apply in representation of a Supporting Organization (SO) or Advisory Committee (AC). Candidatures to serve as independent experts will not be considered. Please download the full text of this Call for Applicants [PDF, 73 KB], which contains further instructions and information on the application procedure for interested candidates. Applications will be accepted until 15 July 2010 at 23:59 UTC. SO/ACs' requirements are to be posted on the Affirmation Reviews web space very shortly. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Brussels Sunday morning breakfast cancelled
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

Councillors, Glen and I have just been informed that due to severe budget cuts, we have to choose between either the Sunday morning breakfast or the Thursday wrap-up breakfast. As the Thursday wrap-up is obviously not something we can do without, we have had no choice but to cancel the Sunday morning breakfast. Stéphane

2 1

Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines Published
by Glen de Saint Géry June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines Published http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-31may10-en.htm WG-WT Publishes its Report 31 May 2010 As part of GNSO Improvements, which has as its objective to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), a Working Group (WG) Work Team (WT) was tasked with developing a Working Group Model. The Working Group Model should become the focal point for GNSO policy development and enhance the policy development process by making it more inclusive and representative, and - ultimately - more effective and efficient. To this end, the WG WT has developed a document, entitled 'GNSO Working Group Guidelines', which brings together two different elements of the Working Group process; on the one hand it addresses what should be considered in creating, purposing, funding, staffing, and instructing/guiding a WG to accomplish the desired outcome (the chartering process), and; secondly, what guidance should be provided to a WG on elements such as structuring, norms, tasking, reporting, and delivering the outcome(s) as chartered (the working group process). Following review of public comments on an earlier version of the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the WG WT has now finalized its recommendations and will submit the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) for its review. Background In the past, the GNSO decided policy mainly through small legislative bodies called "Task Forces." Intentionally, it is moving towards a more inclusive, representative model where key parties tackle an issue together as a "Working Group," then make recommendations to the GNSO Council. The WG WT was tasked to define the new Working Group model, including guidelines, checklists, and other materials to speed the process of creating, chartering, naming, funding, staffing, and guiding a GNSO Working Group. Further Information * GNSO Working Group Guidelines - http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/working-group-guidelines-31may10-en.pdf [PDF, 681 KB] * WG-WT Workspace - https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team * GNSO Improvements - http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ Staff responsible: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [council] AoC RT Endorsement Process Document and Motion
by Caroline Greer June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

I will second the motion. Caroline. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 01 June 2010 15:29 To: gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] FW: [council] AoC RT Endorsement Process Document and Motion Thanks Bill. I encourage a Councilor on the ARR-DT to second the motion on the Council list. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:21 AM To: GNSO Council List Cc: Margie Milam Subject: [council] AoC RT Endorsement Process Document and Motion Hello everyone, As mentioned on the last Council call, the drafting team has reached closure on a simplified, fairly apolitical proposed procedure for the routine handling of review team endorsements going forward. Hopefully this removes from the process any guesswork and undue stress. Please see the attached document and distribute it to your SGs for discussion and any feedback with an eye toward adoption on the next Council call. Re: the latter, I hereby make the following motion (thanks Margie for drafting); the mentioned link will be added later. Thanks, Bill MOTION TO APPROVE AOC ENDORSMENT PROCESS: Whereas, in furtherance of ICANN's responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitment (AOC), the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to develop a process to endorse volunteers to serve on the each of the AOC review teams; Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team) has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process for all future AOC review team selections; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process described in the attached document <insert link to document>; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the Endorsement Process for all future AOC review team selections, including the "WHOIS Policy" and the "Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS" Review Teams; and RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is requested to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the "WHOIS Policy" and "Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS" review teams.

1 0

AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report
by Craig Schwartz June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

Dear Councilors, Please find attached the third AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report. This report provides a status update on the implementation of the Policy since it was announced to the community on 17 December 2008. ICANN looks forward to providing an update to the Council at its meeting on 10 June 2010, and answering any questions councilors may have about this information. Best, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

1 0