June 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft Council minutes 10 JUne 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry June 16, 2010

June 16, 2010

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 10 June 2010. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html# on Friday, 25 June 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
by Gomes, Chuck June 16, 2010

June 16, 2010

Here’s is Jeff’s response to my message. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:19 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks Chuck. In my note I did explicitly state that the opinions expressed were my own and not on behalf of my employer or the RySG. I am also sorry that you are taking this as an indication of lack of trust in our Councilors. This is not about trust at all, but about being a consensus driven bottom-up organization. We elect Councilors to represent the SG position where in fact we have had time to consider and come to an SG opinion. Any comments on the cross-constituency list so we can have this discussion as opposed to me asking you to post to the Council list (which I know is a pain and I do appreciate). Thanks. 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. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:27 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Mary Wong; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Jeff, It seems to me that you should determine whether the RySG supports your concern just like Mary did with the NCSG. I, for one, think what you are proposing would impede the Council. If every time an amendment is made there needs to be comment period, where does it end? If we cannot trust our representatives with some common sense, then we have bigger problems. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:18 PM To: Mary Wong; GNSO Council; Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks Mary. I cannot post to the Council list, so I ask you to post my reply. I appreciate your sentiments, but I think the language is too broad and may be used by some for purposes other than which you intended. Perhaps these things do not need to go out for a “public comment” period as we normally think of those words, but there should be time to discuss with our stakeholder groups especially if it relates to policy. The fact that your proposed amendment was discussed by the NCSG prior to meeting is great for your SG, but it was never discussed with our SG and in fact, the resolution does not even really relate to the substance of string similarity. If anything, it should not have been an amendment, but rather should have been a wholly new motion and separately addressed. We need to focus on issues as a community. We need to have a cross stakeholder group list where these issues can be discussed in the open rather than being surprised at a Council meeting that one SG wants an amendment added to a motion. I will ask, as I do every year, for a new mailing list to be set up that facilitates true cross-community communication. The other issue is that when the GNSO Council sends a letter, or even the Chair sends a letter, there is an assumption and perception that the entire GNSO Community supports the substance of what has been communicated. One only needs to look at ICANN staff reports that refer to letters that have been submitted in the past to see this is the case. So, if others non-GNSO community members are going to assume that when such a letter is sent that it is supported by the GNSO community, isn’t there an obligation by the GNSO Council to make sure that it actually is. My goal is not to impede the Council, but rather to ensure the appropriate level of feedback from each of the SGs. Does that mean things may take more time? Sure. But I have yet to see any circumstance the Council has acted on that was of sufficient urgency that at least some time period of consultation could not be afforded. Thanks for your consideration. 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. From: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:36 AM To: GNSO Council; Chuck Gomes Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks for forwarding this, Chuck. Jeff and everyone, as the person who proposed the "FURTHER RESOLVED" language in the resolution, let me explain that my intent was most definitely not to elevate the Council's role, much less to lessen the importance and input from the community that the Council represents. Although this particular resolution (and accompanying letter) dealt with an issue of huge importance to everyone, I was concerned that it could be taken in the future as an indication that everything the Council sends out to any ICANN Board/staff member, constituent or other body must necessarily first be subject to a public comment period. In other words, my thought was that the Council should not be impeded in its discussions or decisions by a "requirement" that, while not mandated by any bylaw or operating rule/procedure, becomes - through time and/or practice - a rule, especially as Council letters may concern a wide variety of topics (from coordination with other ACSOs to substantive major issues like this particular one). I fully agree that the Council not only represents the GNSO community, but must act in full consultation with it and that each Councillor ought to act in the best interests of the community he/she represents. This is especially so in the new GNSO environment, where the Council is clearly not supposed to be a legislative body but more of a management team. Finally, you may be interested to know that my addition to the resolution was discussed among, and approved by, the NCSG prior to the Council meeting. As such, it was something I proposed as a representative of the views of the community that I was elected by! I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. 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: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> CC: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: 6/15/2010 10:58 AM Subject: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) I am forwarded this to the Council list as requested by Jeff. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:19 AM To: bcute(a)afilias.info; becky.burr(a)wilmerhale.com; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, Can I ask that this comment is submitted to the Accountability and Review Team? It is submitted in response to the GNSO Resolution on String Similarity.( http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm) and more particularly to the specific GNSO Resolution in posting the letter out for comment. Chuck – Can you also please post to the Council for me as well? Thanks. 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. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:15 AM To: string-similarity-amendment(a)icann.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder Group. In addition, my comment is not on the draft letter itself, as those comments, if any, will be submitted through the RySG, but rather relates to the resolution passed by the GNSO Council requesting that the letter go out for public comment. More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the community, the GNSO Council included the following language: “FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters.” Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition, but I believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of different levels. It is not the GNSO Council’s role to decide what does and does not go out for public comment when it relates to policy (as this letter clearly does). That role should be specifically reserved for the GNSO community. The GNSO Council’s authority, as documented in the Bylaws, is generated from the people and communities in which it serves. This has been said over and over again, but the Council is NOT a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, policy decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed through individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to the Council for it to manage, not the other way around. To the extent that any “letters” are submitted by the Council to any external party, and those letters relate to policy, then yes they do need to go out for community input. If they merely relate to administrative of true coordination matters, then they do not need to go out for comment. As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public comment, I thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this for comment. It is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to policy. I am not sure why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to include this “further resolution”, but to the extent that it reflects the presumption that Council does not have to go back to the community when it issues letters relating to policy, I ask that the resolution be stricken from the record. I ask that this issue be considered by the appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also submitting this separately to the Accountability and Review team for its consideration. I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting in Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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. <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>

2 1

AW: [gnso-wpm-dt] Re: Prioritization Process - Motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 16, 2010

June 16, 2010

I second it Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-wpm-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Olga Cavalli Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 13:04 An: gnso-wpm-dt(a)icann.org Betreff: [gnso-wpm-dt] Re: Prioritization Process - Motion Hi, friendly reminder that this motion needs a second. Regards Olga 2010/6/14 Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com> Hi, I am sending the folowing motion for your consideration. Best regards Olga GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Re: Work Prioritization) WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution and timeline <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions> to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ) 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 Prioritization Project List <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-e n.pdf> (v1.0), including a Cover Letter <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-p roject-list-30apr10-en.pdf> , on 30 April 2010 [Council approved on 20 May 2010 <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> ] 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 all 15 Eligible Projects; 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.

1 0

MOTION RE. GCOT & CSG RECOMMENDATIONS
by Gomes, Chuck June 16, 2010

June 16, 2010

As one of the Councilors on the OSC, I am hereby making the motion pasted below and attached regarding the OSC GCOT & CSG recommendations. A second is welcome. Chuck MOTION RE. GCOT & CSG RECOMMENDATIONS WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-impl ementation-plan-16oct08.pdf> for implementing the various GNSO Improvements <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm> identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008; WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) <https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team> and the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) <https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team> , which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report <http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report- 03feb08.pdf> recommendations; WHEREAS, the GCOT has completed and submitted certain documents that it recommends be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) as follows: * Section 2.1-Council Member Term Limits <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-term-limits-24may 10-en.pdf> * Section 2.4-Board Seat Elections <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-board-seat-electi ons-24may10-en.pdf> * Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-absences-vacancie s-11jun10-en.pdf> * Chapter 4.0-Voting <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-voting-11jun10-en .pdf> * Chapter 5.0-Statements and Disclosures of Interest <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-soi-doi-11jun10-e n.pdf> o Note that two sections, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, are not approved pending further Staff action to be determined. These sections are footnoted in the document as "inactive" until subsequently approved by the OSC and Council. WHEREAS, the CSG-WT has completed and submitted the following document that it recommends be approved for implementation within the GNSO: * Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en. pdf> Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en. pdf> WHEREAS, the OSC has approved the above referenced GCOT amendments to the GOP and the CSG-WT recommendations and has forwarded these documents (via embedded links) to the GNSO Council on or before 15 June 2010; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables submitted by the Work Teams and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post these aforementioned documents for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on these documents, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period. <<MOTION REGARDING GCOT AND CSG RECOMMENDATIONS 15 JUN 2010.docx>>

2 1

FW: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
by Gomes, Chuck June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

My apologies Jeff. I did not intend this to go to the Council list. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:27 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Mary Wong; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Jeff, It seems to me that you should determine whether the RySG supports your concern just like Mary did with the NCSG. I, for one, think what you are proposing would impede the Council. If every time an amendment is made there needs to be comment period, where does it end? If we cannot trust our representatives with some common sense, then we have bigger problems. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:18 PM To: Mary Wong; GNSO Council; Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks Mary. I cannot post to the Council list, so I ask you to post my reply. I appreciate your sentiments, but I think the language is too broad and may be used by some for purposes other than which you intended. Perhaps these things do not need to go out for a “public comment” period as we normally think of those words, but there should be time to discuss with our stakeholder groups especially if it relates to policy. The fact that your proposed amendment was discussed by the NCSG prior to meeting is great for your SG, but it was never discussed with our SG and in fact, the resolution does not even really relate to the substance of string similarity. If anything, it should not have been an amendment, but rather should have been a wholly new motion and separately addressed. We need to focus on issues as a community. We need to have a cross stakeholder group list where these issues can be discussed in the open rather than being surprised at a Council meeting that one SG wants an amendment added to a motion. I will ask, as I do every year, for a new mailing list to be set up that facilitates true cross-community communication. The other issue is that when the GNSO Council sends a letter, or even the Chair sends a letter, there is an assumption and perception that the entire GNSO Community supports the substance of what has been communicated. One only needs to look at ICANN staff reports that refer to letters that have been submitted in the past to see this is the case. So, if others non-GNSO community members are going to assume that when such a letter is sent that it is supported by the GNSO community, isn’t there an obligation by the GNSO Council to make sure that it actually is. My goal is not to impede the Council, but rather to ensure the appropriate level of feedback from each of the SGs. Does that mean things may take more time? Sure. But I have yet to see any circumstance the Council has acted on that was of sufficient urgency that at least some time period of consultation could not be afforded. Thanks for your consideration. 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. From: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:36 AM To: GNSO Council; Chuck Gomes Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks for forwarding this, Chuck. Jeff and everyone, as the person who proposed the "FURTHER RESOLVED" language in the resolution, let me explain that my intent was most definitely not to elevate the Council's role, much less to lessen the importance and input from the community that the Council represents. Although this particular resolution (and accompanying letter) dealt with an issue of huge importance to everyone, I was concerned that it could be taken in the future as an indication that everything the Council sends out to any ICANN Board/staff member, constituent or other body must necessarily first be subject to a public comment period. In other words, my thought was that the Council should not be impeded in its discussions or decisions by a "requirement" that, while not mandated by any bylaw or operating rule/procedure, becomes - through time and/or practice - a rule, especially as Council letters may concern a wide variety of topics (from coordination with other ACSOs to substantive major issues like this particular one). I fully agree that the Council not only represents the GNSO community, but must act in full consultation with it and that each Councillor ought to act in the best interests of the community he/she represents. This is especially so in the new GNSO environment, where the Council is clearly not supposed to be a legislative body but more of a management team. Finally, you may be interested to know that my addition to the resolution was discussed among, and approved by, the NCSG prior to the Council meeting. As such, it was something I proposed as a representative of the views of the community that I was elected by! I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. 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: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> CC: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: 6/15/2010 10:58 AM Subject: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) I am forwarded this to the Council list as requested by Jeff. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:19 AM To: bcute(a)afilias.info; becky.burr(a)wilmerhale.com; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, Can I ask that this comment is submitted to the Accountability and Review Team? It is submitted in response to the GNSO Resolution on String Similarity.( http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm) and more particularly to the specific GNSO Resolution in posting the letter out for comment. Chuck – Can you also please post to the Council for me as well? Thanks. 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. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:15 AM To: string-similarity-amendment(a)icann.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder Group. In addition, my comment is not on the draft letter itself, as those comments, if any, will be submitted through the RySG, but rather relates to the resolution passed by the GNSO Council requesting that the letter go out for public comment. More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the community, the GNSO Council included the following language: “FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters.” Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition, but I believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of different levels. It is not the GNSO Council’s role to decide what does and does not go out for public comment when it relates to policy (as this letter clearly does). That role should be specifically reserved for the GNSO community. The GNSO Council’s authority, as documented in the Bylaws, is generated from the people and communities in which it serves. This has been said over and over again, but the Council is NOT a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, policy decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed through individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to the Council for it to manage, not the other way around. To the extent that any “letters” are submitted by the Council to any external party, and those letters relate to policy, then yes they do need to go out for community input. If they merely relate to administrative of true coordination matters, then they do not need to go out for comment. As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public comment, I thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this for comment. It is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to policy. I am not sure why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to include this “further resolution”, but to the extent that it reflects the presumption that Council does not have to go back to the community when it issues letters relating to policy, I ask that the resolution be stricken from the record. I ask that this issue be considered by the appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also submitting this separately to the Accountability and Review team for its consideration. I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting in Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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. <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>

1 0

Motion regarding CCT recommendations
by Gomes, Chuck June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

I hereby submit the following motion for consideration in our 23 June Council meeting under agenda item "5.2.1 OSC Recommendations from the Communications & Coordination Work Team". A second is welcome. Chuck <<MOTION PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF GNSO WEBSITE 15 JUN 2010.docx>> RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF GNSO WEBSITE 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, at its 20 May 2010 meeting, the GNSO Council postponed voting on a motion to approve the entire set of CCT recommendations; WHEREAS, the CCT report contains very specific technical recommendations, developed in the summer of 2009, to improve the GNSO Website's navigation, usability, and functionality and which have received widespread community support and endorsement; WHEREAS, Staff has been engaged in ongoing planning and preparatory implementation of those aforementioned recommendations; WHEREAS, Staff is positioned to continue its forward momentum to deliver these much needed GNSO Website improvements expeditiously; NOW, BE IT THEREFORE: RESOLVED, pending GNSO Council approval of the CCT Final Consolidated Report <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.p df>, in its entirety, Staff is directed to continue implementation work on the GNSO Website including, as planned and budgeted, the engagement of consultants and contractors needed to perform portions of the development.

2 1

RE: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT
by Tim Ruiz June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

How does this fit into our prioritization efforts? It's not on the current list of 15 projects. I would think that the RrSG would be interested in this effort, but I also think we need to figure out how it fits overall on the priority list. Of course, something we (RrSG) noted when completed our ratings was that three or four of the listed projects are very near end. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, June 11, 2010 10:05 am To: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I made similar points to Chris Wolf. He understands that a charter cannot be completed before Brussels but would just like to see the work getting started on the charter. I totally support your suggestion, i.e., “The intention and the status could be announced by Chris and yourself in Brussels and the chartering team could start drafting immediately afterwards.”, and believe he is comfortable with that as well. But I would like to identify all charter DT volunteers by then if not before if possible. Thanks for the good comments. Chuck From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:50 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT I understand Chris' request but would like to ask if the time pressure is that much that immediate action (before Brussels) is needed. We're really busy to cover all the more urgent items (e.g. New gTLDs, VI, PDP...) until that event. To avoid misunderstanding: there's great interest on CSG side to actively participate in a (pre-)WG offering technical, operational and managerial expertise, as well for chartering. But I don't see capacity available to be provided for immediate action. The intention and the status could be announced by Chris and yourself in Brussels and the chartering team could start drafting immediately afterwards. Regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Juni 2010 03:41 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT Wichtigkeit: Hoch I forwarded the following message to the Council the yesterday and added the topic to our agenda for our meeting under Other Business. Unfortunately, as we ran out of time, I failed to cover it. My intent was to simply ask if anyone objected to considering the formation of a WG as described by Chris and if not, to request volunteers to start working on a possible charter with volunteers from the ccNSO. So I will ask those questions now: 1. Does anyone object to considering the formation of such a WG? Note that we would not make an official decision to support such a WG until after we see a draft charter. If anyone objects, please communicate your objection not later than next Wednesday, 16 June. 2. Assuming there is no opposition, who would like to volunteer for the charter drafting team? Note that this is not a request for volunteers for what might eventually be a WG, but only for a charter DT. Regarding question 2, there have already been some volunteers in response to my message yesterday: · Terry Davis (NCA) · Rafik Damik (NCSG) · Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias) · Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR) · Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign). If anyone else wants to volunteer, please communicate your interest on this list not later than next Wednesday, 16 June. We will then communicate the names and contact information to the ccNSO. Thanks, Chuck From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT Chuck, In our conversation last week we discussed the possibility of the gNSO and ccNSO (along with other relevant ACs and independent experts) setting up the working group contemplated in the joint Chair’s letter to ICANN of 25 March 2010 as soon as possible. I put this proposal to the ccNSO council on our call of 8 June and confirm that the council has agreed that in the event of the proposal also being agreed by the gNSO council, a small joint drafting team should work before Brussels to draft the charter for the establishment of a Working Group comprising representatives of ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee, Root Server System Advisory Committee, GAC, ALAC, CERT operators and ccTLD and gTLD managers to draw upon their collective expertise and to solicit their input on: · the broad concept of a DNS-CERT; · the current work being undertaken to mitigate DNS-related threats; · the actual level, frequency and severity of these threats; · the gaps (if any) in the current security response to DNS issues; · whether or not a DNS-CERT is a proposal they support; and · if so, the logistics of the proposal. The goal would be to have the charter approved by the ccNSO and gNSO in Brussels if possible so that we can announce the formation of the working group. I’m guessing that formally the working group will need to be a joint gNSO ccNSO group (as the 2 relevant supporting organisations that can actually make policy) with the charter mandating the involvement of the relevant ACs and outside experts. In the event that the gNSO council does approve the proposal then the action items will be a) to call for some volunteers to do the drafting along with Bart Boswinkel as ccNSO staff and an equivalent gNSO person and b) to approach the other ACs to inform them that this is occurring. I understand your council meets on 10 June 2010 and look forward to hearing from you regarding your discussions. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: 1300 732 929 | F: 03 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W:www.auda.org.au auDA - The Australian Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5183 (20100608) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

6 11

FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
by Gomes, Chuck June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

Note that Janis & Rod made the decision to make no changes in the AoC SSR RT but did change the Whois RT to four GNSO reps. Chuck From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:04 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Chuck Thank you for explaining preoccupations of the GNSO in relation to the size and composition of the next two review teams. In this respect I would like to inform you that the Selectors examined your comments and found that some of them are well grounded, some of them – hints to over-estimation of the role of the RT and the scope of its activities. The efficiency of the work of the RT and the resource implications still remain serious considerations for the Selectors. Therefore, in the spirit of cooperation and taking into account GNSO comments and as a possible compromise, the Selectors are suggesting that the size and composition of the SSR RT would remain unchanged, but the WHOIS RT would get 2 additional GNSO representatives, while quota of others would remain unchanged. Security WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 4 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 12 I hope that GNSO and others will accept this compromise proposal with understanding and that it will serve as a basis of common agreement. Pls advice. Thank you in advance JK From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: piektdiena, 2010. gada 11. jūnijā 17:00 To: Janis Karklins; soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: Rod Beckstrom; Donna Austin; Olof Nordling Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Janis, After fairly extensive discussion on the GNSO Council list and additional discussion in our Council meeting yesterday, the GNSO feels very strongly that it is important to have four representatives on each of the RTs. I have included a sampling of some of the comments and rationale provided by various Councilors below. Note that most of these comments were reinforced by multiple Councilors and that there was overall agreement in the Council meeting for the position. Chuck General Comments · I'm not sure that an additional 2 GNSO reps will be detrimental to efficiency, and I should think it would actually add to the credibility of the process - which leaves "budgetary limitations" as the remaining (relatively unconvincing) reason. · It seems to me that the ramifications of the selectors rejecting GNSO input as to participant number are potentially significant. In particular, the irony of doing so while the accountability and transparency review is underway is pretty amazing. I think that would play pretty well (against ICANN, that is) in a number of important fora. · It'd be a lot easier if they'd just default to four across the board in order to ensure community representation and diverse skill sets at the table, rather than turning RT size into a needless source of angst. · 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. SSR RT · All three (SSR) are already huge issues and will directly affect all the rollout and use of TLD’s, IDN_TLDs, and ccTLDs and some of the issues that could be coming would include: - Punycode storage of IDN names – Neither any human nor most existing security mechanisms (anti-virus, firewalls, etc) can read it directly. It is the main reason you need “standard script” usage. - DNSSec – Can it and should it be pushed to all TLDs? (After a demo of DNS hacks a couple weeks back, I’m not sure I will ever trust a wireless hotspot fully again.) - DNSSec – Credentials – Key distribution chains and processes, rollover mechanisms, and there will likely be some of revocation process needed for bad behavior. - DNSSec – Operational issues yet to be determined too. DNSSec generates a 30x increase in response traffic for instance plus signature processing overhead. - Network management systems likewise will likely have initial issues with IDNs too. - Increased discussions of “network cyber identity requirements” and how these might work in an IDN environment. - Routing reliability as IPv6 vastly increases the route table sizes - IPv6 reachability and initial usage rollouts. (Outside of Microsoft, I could not say that anyone on the globe has a large scale IPv6 infrastructure working yet.) - New “whois” issues that could be created by fact that more, maybe most, IPv6 addresses will be indirectly assigned through an ISP to the end user or organization rather than directly assigned via IANA and the RIRs. · From an operational point of view, with implementation of TLDs, ccTLDs, IDN_TLDs, DNSSec, and IPv6 plus the issues with route stability and huge growth in cybercrime; one could reasonably expect that many unseen/unknown operational issues will affect GNSO plans and policies. (and certainly keep the SSR busy!) · The economies and critical infrastructure (communications, power, financial, etc) of at least 50 nations around the globe are completely tied to the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet so SSR issues are considered very carefully by most governments. · The Commercial SG provides combined expertise in technical, operational and legal respect of security aspects of the DNS system. Whois RT · Whereas Internet users across the whole ICANN community are impacted by Whois policy, I don’t think there is any doubt that GNSO constituents are impacted the most. It is gTLD registrants whose data is displayed and used. It is gTLD contracted parties who are required to implement Whois and who best understand the customer service and operational issues related to Whois offerings. It is commercial gTLD registrants whose businesses are affected when IP rights are violated. It is noncommercial users who have most often pointed out the need for privacy of Whois information and noncommercial organizations that are impacted in similar ways as commercial businesses. · In addition, because of the GNSO’s long and belabored Whois policy development history and varied Whois operational offerings, the GNSO has the best source of Whois experts from various points of view. There is also good evidence that each SG provides a unique area of expertise and represents different points of view with regard to Whois policy. · Whois is one of the few areas where people who are generally like-minded can have VERY different positions. · There really has to be four for WHOIS, the perspectives of the SGs are just too variable for any two to represent the others, and the whole process could become a focal point of controversy. · I strongly oppose accepting only two seats on the Whois. New gTLDs RT · Similar arguments could be made for this future RT. 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

3 3

RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
by Gomes, Chuck June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

Jeff, It seems to me that you should determine whether the RySG supports your concern just like Mary did with the NCSG. I, for one, think what you are proposing would impede the Council. If every time an amendment is made there needs to be comment period, where does it end? If we cannot trust our representatives with some common sense, then we have bigger problems. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:18 PM To: Mary Wong; GNSO Council; Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks Mary. I cannot post to the Council list, so I ask you to post my reply. I appreciate your sentiments, but I think the language is too broad and may be used by some for purposes other than which you intended. Perhaps these things do not need to go out for a “public comment” period as we normally think of those words, but there should be time to discuss with our stakeholder groups especially if it relates to policy. The fact that your proposed amendment was discussed by the NCSG prior to meeting is great for your SG, but it was never discussed with our SG and in fact, the resolution does not even really relate to the substance of string similarity. If anything, it should not have been an amendment, but rather should have been a wholly new motion and separately addressed. We need to focus on issues as a community. We need to have a cross stakeholder group list where these issues can be discussed in the open rather than being surprised at a Council meeting that one SG wants an amendment added to a motion. I will ask, as I do every year, for a new mailing list to be set up that facilitates true cross-community communication. The other issue is that when the GNSO Council sends a letter, or even the Chair sends a letter, there is an assumption and perception that the entire GNSO Community supports the substance of what has been communicated. One only needs to look at ICANN staff reports that refer to letters that have been submitted in the past to see this is the case. So, if others non-GNSO community members are going to assume that when such a letter is sent that it is supported by the GNSO community, isn’t there an obligation by the GNSO Council to make sure that it actually is. My goal is not to impede the Council, but rather to ensure the appropriate level of feedback from each of the SGs. Does that mean things may take more time? Sure. But I have yet to see any circumstance the Council has acted on that was of sufficient urgency that at least some time period of consultation could not be afforded. Thanks for your consideration. 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. From: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:36 AM To: GNSO Council; Chuck Gomes Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks for forwarding this, Chuck. Jeff and everyone, as the person who proposed the "FURTHER RESOLVED" language in the resolution, let me explain that my intent was most definitely not to elevate the Council's role, much less to lessen the importance and input from the community that the Council represents. Although this particular resolution (and accompanying letter) dealt with an issue of huge importance to everyone, I was concerned that it could be taken in the future as an indication that everything the Council sends out to any ICANN Board/staff member, constituent or other body must necessarily first be subject to a public comment period. In other words, my thought was that the Council should not be impeded in its discussions or decisions by a "requirement" that, while not mandated by any bylaw or operating rule/procedure, becomes - through time and/or practice - a rule, especially as Council letters may concern a wide variety of topics (from coordination with other ACSOs to substantive major issues like this particular one). I fully agree that the Council not only represents the GNSO community, but must act in full consultation with it and that each Councillor ought to act in the best interests of the community he/she represents. This is especially so in the new GNSO environment, where the Council is clearly not supposed to be a legislative body but more of a management team. Finally, you may be interested to know that my addition to the resolution was discussed among, and approved by, the NCSG prior to the Council meeting. As such, it was something I proposed as a representative of the views of the community that I was elected by! I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. 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: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> CC: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: 6/15/2010 10:58 AM Subject: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) I am forwarded this to the Council list as requested by Jeff. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:19 AM To: bcute(a)afilias.info; becky.burr(a)wilmerhale.com; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, Can I ask that this comment is submitted to the Accountability and Review Team? It is submitted in response to the GNSO Resolution on String Similarity.( http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm) and more particularly to the specific GNSO Resolution in posting the letter out for comment. Chuck – Can you also please post to the Council for me as well? Thanks. 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. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:15 AM To: string-similarity-amendment(a)icann.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder Group. In addition, my comment is not on the draft letter itself, as those comments, if any, will be submitted through the RySG, but rather relates to the resolution passed by the GNSO Council requesting that the letter go out for public comment. More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the community, the GNSO Council included the following language: “FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters.” Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition, but I believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of different levels. It is not the GNSO Council’s role to decide what does and does not go out for public comment when it relates to policy (as this letter clearly does). That role should be specifically reserved for the GNSO community. The GNSO Council’s authority, as documented in the Bylaws, is generated from the people and communities in which it serves. This has been said over and over again, but the Council is NOT a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, policy decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed through individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to the Council for it to manage, not the other way around. To the extent that any “letters” are submitted by the Council to any external party, and those letters relate to policy, then yes they do need to go out for community input. If they merely relate to administrative of true coordination matters, then they do not need to go out for comment. As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public comment, I thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this for comment. It is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to policy. I am not sure why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to include this “further resolution”, but to the extent that it reflects the presumption that Council does not have to go back to the community when it issues letters relating to policy, I ask that the resolution be stricken from the record. I ask that this issue be considered by the appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also submitting this separately to the Accountability and Review team for its consideration. I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting in Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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. <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>

1 0

FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
by Gomes, Chuck June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

I am forwarded this to the Council list as requested by Jeff. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:19 AM To: bcute(a)afilias.info; becky.burr(a)wilmerhale.com; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, Can I ask that this comment is submitted to the Accountability and Review Team? It is submitted in response to the GNSO Resolution on String Similarity.( http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm) and more particularly to the specific GNSO Resolution in posting the letter out for comment. Chuck - Can you also please post to the Council for me as well? Thanks. 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. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:15 AM To: string-similarity-amendment(a)icann.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder Group. In addition, my comment is not on the draft letter itself, as those comments, if any, will be submitted through the RySG, but rather relates to the resolution passed by the GNSO Council requesting that the letter go out for public comment. More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the community, the GNSO Council included the following language: "FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters." Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition, but I believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of different levels. It is not the GNSO Council's role to decide what does and does not go out for public comment when it relates to policy (as this letter clearly does). That role should be specifically reserved for the GNSO community. The GNSO Council's authority, as documented in the Bylaws, is generated from the people and communities in which it serves. This has been said over and over again, but the Council is NOT a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, policy decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed through individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to the Council for it to manage, not the other way around. To the extent that any "letters" are submitted by the Council to any external party, and those letters relate to policy, then yes they do need to go out for community input. If they merely relate to administrative of true coordination matters, then they do not need to go out for comment. As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public comment, I thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this for comment. It is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to policy. I am not sure why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to include this "further resolution", but to the extent that it reflects the presumption that Council does not have to go back to the community when it issues letters relating to policy, I ask that the resolution be stricken from the record. I ask that this issue be considered by the appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also submitting this separately to the Accountability and Review team for its consideration. I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting in Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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.

2 1