June 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Adobe Connect room for GNSO Council meeting
by Marika Konings June 23, 2010

June 23, 2010

Dear All, We’ll be using the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room for the open meeting this morning in order to review and modify (if needed) the motions: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Board Chair comments on Council Workload & Prioritisation
by Zahid Jamil June 22, 2010

June 22, 2010

At the CSG Breakfast Peter made the point that if there is an issue in regards workload or prioritisation, it is for the Council to address this matter. This would suggest that we are responsible not to overload our workload, deal with requests in a mature, responsible and measured manner. It seems that if we choose speed and meeting deadlines (at times) over getting the right outcome we are going to be responsible for this in the eyes of the Board and the community. Therefore, it seems that the Council should not shy away from stating that a time line (set by Board or any other entity) cannot be met or that we will have to take time we decide in our responsible opinion and that matters should wait until we get it right and not compromise quality over speed. I especially note this in light of deadlines, at times, being used as leverage during negotiations to push parties to compromise. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

1 0

Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
by William Drake June 21, 2010

June 21, 2010

Hello, In light of the bit of conversation over the past couple days concerning the relationship between Council members and their SGs, the ATRT process and our pending meeting with them, and internal discussions in NCSG, I hear by make the following motion. MOTION ON ENHANCING THE TRANSPARENCY OF GNSO COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS the Affirmation of Commitments mandates that ICANN processes be made as transparent as possible; WHEREAS the GNSO Council seeks to promote broad community awareness of and engagement in GNSO activities; WHEREAS the GNSO Council is a management team whose elected members represent their respective Stakeholder Groups in a manner determined by those Stakeholder Groups; WHEREAS this representation function would be enhanced if Stakeholder Group members were able to listen in real time to Council meetings; and WHEREAS it would be impractical to open the GNSO Council meeting teleconference facility to Stakeholder Group members; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that beginning in July 2010, all GNSO Council teleconference meetings will be audiocast (in addition to being recorded) so that members of the community can listen in real time. *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************

11 23

FW: OSC GCOT 3.8 and 4 and CSG report 1
by Gomes, Chuck June 21, 2010

June 21, 2010

FYI to Councilors. We have a motion for 23 June to approve these reports. Glen - Please make sure there are links to these documents. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 10:30 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: gnso-osc(a)icann.org Subject: OSC GCOT 3.8 and 4 and CSG report 1 Chuck, on behalf of the OSC these are the three documents approved at yesterdays meeting. We recommend them to Council Philip

1 0

RES: WPM Council Resolution Amendment
by Jaime Plug In June 21, 2010

June 21, 2010

Dear All, According to the results of our yesterday exercise I would like to make the following amendment to the Council Resolution on Work Prioritization. Jaime Wagner ISPs Representative CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Commitee) j(a)bwagner.com.br <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> jaime <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> @cgi.br <mailto:jaime@cgi.br> +55(51)8126-0916 De: owner-gnso-wpm-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@icann.org] Em nome de Ken Bour Enviada em: domingo, 20 de junho de 2010 12:14 Para: gnso-wpm-dt(a)icann.org Assunto: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Council Resolution Amendment GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Re: Work Prioritization) WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions> and timeline to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> 6 and ANNEX) recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT); WHEREAS, the adopted timeline outlined four major process steps the first three of which have been completed as follows: 1) Step 1: ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a recommended Work <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pd f> Prioritization Project List (v1.0), including a Cover <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-proje ct-list-30apr10-en.pdf> Letter, on 30 April 2010 [Council <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> approved on 20 May 2010] 2) Step 2: Eighteen Councilors and one Liaison (19 total) submitted individual Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects (approved in Step 1) on or before 9 June (deadline extended from 7 June), which were then successfully processed and aggregated by Staff for input to Step 3; 3) Step 3: The GNSO Council held a Work Prioritization group discussion session on 19 June 2010 in Brussels and successfully finalized a set of Value Ratings for 14 Eligible Projects (Note: the IDNF project was determined by the Council to be "Ineligible"); NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Value Ratings finalized in its group discussion session held on 19 June 2010 and directs Staff to publish those Value Ratings on the GNSO website according to Step 4 of the adopted timeline.

3 2

ICANN Board Resolutions Wiki Launched - Public Comment Encouraged
by Glen de Saint Géry June 21, 2010

June 21, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jun10-en.htm ICANN Board Resolutions Wiki Launched - Public Comment Encouraged 21 June 2010 As part of ICANN's ongoing effort to build upon its strong record of accountability and transparency, ICANN has launched a searchable wiki https://community.icann.org/display/ctap/Board+Resolutions to provide the public with easy-to-access information on every substantive resolution approved by the Board of Directors. In order to get initial public feedback that can serve as the basis for further improvements before full implementation, the 2009 resolutions have been loaded on the wiki. Each resolution has a "work-in-progress" wiki page that provides basic information, including when it was approved, what it's about, the status of the resulting implementation actions, and links to additional information. Each wiki page contains a comment box to allow individuals to share information about the resolution and its implementation. Interested individuals are encouraged to use this wiki and provide feedback to help build a more useful service. Please email comments to the public forum http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#res-wiki by 26 July 2010. An archive of all comments received will be publicly available. Background and next steps: ICANN will consider and incorporate public comments, as appropriate, in the build-out of the ICANN Board Resolutions Wiki. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Whois Studies
by Gomes, Chuck June 21, 2010

June 21, 2010

FYI Chuck From: Kevin Wilson [mailto:kevin.wilson@icann.org] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 2:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Subject: Whois Studies Hi Chuck, Here's the background on the WHOIS studies in the FY11 budget. I can talk from this whenever you want. Kevin

1 0

FW: [soac-discussion] BOF - DNS-CERT
by Gomes, Chuck June 21, 2010

June 21, 2010

FYI Chuck From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:25 PM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: Doug Brent; Greg Rattray Subject: [soac-discussion] BOF - DNS-CERT To Chairs of ICANN SOs and ACs, FYI and for information to your membership: We wanted you to be aware that there will be a Birds of a Feather session on the concept of a DNS-CERT to take place at 1800 on Tuesday evening (22 June) at the ICANN Brussels meeting at the conference center based on the call by Paul Vixie in the following blog post - http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201006/towards-dnscert-definition <http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201006/towards-dnscert-definition> Room 313/315 on the 3rd floor at Square Brussels Meeting Centre. All interested parties are welcome. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

1 0

Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
by Mary Wong June 21, 2010

June 21, 2010

FWIW I agree with Bill and Caroline that the motion, as it stands (or is that stood?) does NOT prevent the Council from proposing/supporting/endorsing a different process for future RTs. What it seems to me to do is to endorse a baseline/default starting point that has the benefit of being uniform, clear and resulting from the thoughtful efforts of the DT (on which all SGs were represented). I find it somewhat ironic - and perhaps a testimony to those who have mentioned elsewhere that the question of what we as Councillors are meant to do or be - that the question of whether (and to what extent) the Council is acting as a "managerial" versus a legislative top-down body in the new GNSO environment seems to be arising in various contexts recently. Regardless, I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that Councillors elected by their SGs would not do their best to fully represent that SG's interests, while respecting the role of the Council and the need for consensus among the whole ICANN community (even if this means, as is often the case, questioning or proposing amendments to motions, as happened here. I fully believe that the differences of opinion we are seeing on this issue is the result of various Councillors balancing the demands and needs of their particular SGs/constituencies with the overall effect to the community and the work of the Cou I understand that this may be more difficult - depending on the issue, for instance - for certain SGs at certain points in time. However, and in this particular context, I'm inclined to give greater weight to the deliberations and recommendations of the DT, especially as it was a broadly representative team and it remains open to us at a future date to require and/or justify a different process. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> To:<KnobenW(a)telekom.de> CC:<cgomes(a)verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak(a)GMAIL.COM>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: 6/16/2010 6:43 PM Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement Hi Wolf-Ulrich, On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> wrote: As I tried to explain, the amended motion does not preclude using the same process after the next two RTs. But it doesn't cement it like some GNSO folks were feeling before A parallel small point, the unamended motion does not preclude the Council revisiting the process after the next two RTs if issues are identified that merit tweak. No cement or other building materials bind us to follow this or any other process we don't prefer. This I guess is consistent with Kristina's earlier comments that Council " has been greatly restricted in the restructuring and the initially proposed mechanism goes beyond that role," and that "having a slightly more complicated process at the SG level is far preferable to having the Council take on an SG role and make nominations independent of the community." But per previous I don't quite get the notion that elected representatives of SGs working together in Council are somehow separate from and would be acting above/independent of SGs in voting on endorsements. Does that only hold here, or is it true of any and all Council decisions? If we adopt this language, are we collectively establishing the premise that Council is not a representative body that can act on behalf of its constituents? I'd think it important to be clear what we're saying here. I understand CSG wants to talk about this Saturday in the non-contracted house meeting, which will presumably help, but it seems like a conversation for the wider Council and community too if for no other reason than the Council (?) will have to vote on it. [WUK: ] It is more about the question of the council's competences. According to the bylaws "The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO". Since the activities around the AoC could be seen as lying outside these competences it is advisable to ascertain the GNSO as a whole endorses the process. In other words: where the council competences are not in question we won't have such a discussion. Determining whether the GNSO as a whole supports or opposes a particular decision on our plate would be an interesting new requirement for Council action. We could, for example, henceforth require a consultation and consensus formation on http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709 before taking any action. I'm sure there are some folks there who'd like to weigh in. But in lieu of such a requirement, Council representatives act in accordance with the norms and customs of their respective communities and of the democratically elected Council. An interesting question then is whether other SGs and the Council as a whole should set aside that approach, redefine its role, and base its actions on any one SG's internal norms and dynamics. I'm open to persuasion, but a priori this seems like an unusual foundation for collective action. Cheers, Bill Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership

4 4

MOTION RE GCOT & CSG RECOMMENDATIONS
by Rosette, Kristina June 20, 2010

June 20, 2010

All, Attached is a proposed revised motion and a redline against the original. I realized while drafting that my original proposed amendment - adding 4.5.2.b to the list of sections not being approved (e.g., "sections 4.5.2.b, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 are not approved . ... .) - didn't really work. Instead, I modified the resolved clause to exclude these three referenced sections. Please let me know if you have questions. K <<KR suggested revisions to Original GCOT Motion.doc>>

1 0