June 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

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