July 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: GNSO Council Resolution passed on 15 July 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was passed at the Council meeting on 15 July 2010. Mary Wong proposed an amendment to the motion on the New gTLD Recommendation (as amended 15 July 2010) that was made by Edmon Chung and seconded by Rafik Dammak; Edmon and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly. Note: The original motion was discussed in the Council meeting on 20 May and deferred to 10 June. In making the amended motion, Edmon submitted a redline version to the Council list on 2 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html) and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html) WHEREAS: · The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; · The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook; · The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string; · The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet; · A Twenty-one day public comment period was held, comments were received and considered by the Council; RESOLVED: · The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 to send the letter. PROPOSED LETTER: To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team, CC: ICANN Board The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on ³String Similarity - Extended Review² that parallels other such sections in Module 2. This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be justified for applicants for a string which has been denied further processing based on confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually detrimental. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as: · The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or applied for string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the detrimental confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid. · A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be judged to be similar but their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request. The motion carried unanimously in the Contracted Parties House and the motion carried in Non Contracted Parties House with one abstention. Jaime Wagner(ISPCP) abstained providing the following reason: Because there were strong discussions in the ISPCP and though I am in favour, there is some concern about the motion and it is better for me to abstain than express my personal views. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

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

July 15, 2010

In response to Wolf’s request at the end of today’s Council meeting, I sent the following message. I will keep the Council informed regarding any response I receive. Chuck From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:20 AM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: Rod Beckstrom; Donna Austin; Olof Nordling; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Rod/Heather, I believe that the following listed compositions of the SSR and Whois RTs were the last to be communicated. But I don’t think I ever saw a final decision in this regard. It would be helpful for GNSO stakeholder groups to know what the final compositions will be as they do their work in the next few weeks regarding GNSO endorsements. Any information you can provide in that regard would be appreciated. Chuck Gomes 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

1 0

FW: Submission: Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer Review Team Member
by Glen de Saint Géry July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

Dear Councillors, Following up on the information provided on the Council call today, please note that Rodney Joffe has withdrawn his application for the GNSO. The revision will be shown on page: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Alice Jansen Sent: jeudi 15 juillet 2010 14:24 To: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: FW: Submission: Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer Review Team Member Glen, Cc: Olof, Find enclosed Rodney's response and explanations. If you could inform the Council during your call today, that would be great- thank you so much! -----Original Message----- From: Rodney Joffe [mailto:Rodney.Joffe@neustar.biz] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:22 PM To: RT Candidatures Subject: Re: Submission: Call for Applicants for the Position of Volunteer Review Team Member Hello Alice, It appears that the incorrect documents were picked up and transmitted to you yesterday by our admin system. As you point out, the call for candidature requests applications for one AC/SO. The documents submitted were preliminary documents before the decision had been made as to which AC/SO would be more appropriate, and therefore were for both. I am attaching the correct set of documents now. The only changes relate to the AC/SO and associated stakeholder group - therefor the only documents that have been modified are the Motivation Statement and ccNSO Requirements document, and only to reflect that the application is for ccNSO only. Please confirm whether this causes an issue, and if so, how you would like it handled. I apologize for the confusion. Sincerely, Rodney Joffe

1 0

FW: Susan Kawaguchi
by Glen de Saint Géry July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

This application will be posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm Forwarded From: Alice Jansen Dear Glen, Find attached Susan Kawaguchi's application for the WHOIS Policy Review Team. Thank you so much, Kind regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews

1 0

FW: George Sakyi - additionnal requirements
by Glen de Saint Géry July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

This will be reposted on page : http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: Alice Jansen Hi Glen, I am re-submitting George Sakyi's details (including additional requirements). Thanks so much, Kind regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews

1 0

FW: Near Final.
by Glen de Saint Géry July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

-----Original Message----- Forwarded From: Neuman, Jeff Glen, Can you please confirm receipt of these for Rodney? 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.

1 0

FW: 2 applications for the Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS RT
by Glen de Saint Géry July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: Alice Jansen Dear Glen, Richard Wilhem and George Sakyi have submitted their application for a position of volunteer member on the Affirmation Review Team 2: Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS. Find attached their documents. Thank you, Kindest regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational/Affirmation Reviews

2 2

RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
by Rosemary Sinclair July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

Hi all I also thought we were clear that the extended review is an exception not the norm Perhaps we should review actual requests over the next 6 months to see whether further clarification of guidelines is warranted Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 Email: rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au <mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au> Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, 9 July 2010 8:16 AM To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation Wolf, Speaking in my personal capacity, I do not understand the concerns. Extended review is by its design an exception procedure; an applicant would have to request it for it to happen on a given application. It would then be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that there was not a problem of detrimental confusing similarity. Before considering additional work for an already overworked GNSO, it would sure help to understand what the ISPCP issues are. What you say below gives no clue about them. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:00 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation Dear councillors, after repeated discussion the ISPCP constituency still has the following concerns regarding the letter to be sent to Kurt Pritz. We understand that there are examples of string similarity which would not necessarily would cause detrimental confusion and that in this case - and only in this - an extended review should be granted to the applicant. However strict rules must be set under which the extended review is permitted ensuring the string similarity review is the normal case and the extended one an exception. These rules are to be worked out with participation of the community. The letter should express that the rules must immediately be worked out by a small expert group in order to achieve community acceptance. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 2

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 15 July 2010 at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting on Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 11:00 UTC please find the updated agenda. Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 15 July 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-15jul10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_for_gnso_council_meeting… (Last minute updates are always indicated on the Wiki agenda) This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: · An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. · An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 11:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 04:00 PDT; 06:00 CDT; 07:00 EDT; 08:00 Buenos Aires; 08:00 Brazil; 13:00 CEST; 15:00 Moscow; 16:00 Pakistan; 19:00 Hong Kong; 20:00 Tokyo, 21:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ Please enter as a 'guest'. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: · 23 June Meeting - Scheduled for approval on 15 July 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09165.html Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work (15 Minutes) 2.1 Refer to posted project ratings: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-r… 2.2 Discussion 2.3 Evaluation of the prioritization process · Lessons learned? · Areas for improvement? · How do we use the ratings? · Questions raised by the DT (Ken Bour) · Suggestions for next steps? · Item 3: GNSO Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review Team (RT) Endorsements for Preserving security, stability and resiliency of the DNS (SSR) & Whois Policies (15 minutes) http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ 3.1 Key dates in the endorsement process · GNSO slate of endorsements is due not later than the end of August · Next Council meetings: 5 August & 26 August · Initial Council action on Stakeholder Group (SG) endorsements needs to occur on 5 August to allow for any needed follow-up action on 26 August 2010. · SG endorsements & any alternates are needed by 28 July 2010. 3.2 Review of the GNSO process (Margie Milam) · Questions? 3.3 Discussion Item 4: Whois Studies (15 minutes) 4.1 Refer to: · Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… · RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm · Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf 4.2 Brief overview of the study choices (Lisa Phifer) http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-whois-report… · Discussion 4.3 Motion to proceed with Study # 1 · Refer to motion https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?15_july_motions · Discussion · Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this.) 4.4 Discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies 4.5 Next steps? Item 5: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (20 Minutes) 5.1 Progress report (Margie Milam) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps? 5.4 Timeline? Item 6: Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report (20 Minutes) 6.1 Refer to Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf 6.2 Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report presentation in Brussels June 2010 http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-rap-report-2… 6.3 Summary of Recommendations (Marika Konings): http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-final-report-conclusion-recommendation… 6.4 Council questions 6.5 Plan for evaluating & acting on the recommendations? Item 7: Resolution on New gTLD String Similarity Evaluation (15 minutes) 7.1 Refer to: · Public comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/string-similarity-amendment/ · Public comment summary & analysis: (insert URL) · Update to Module 2: String Requirements 30 May 2009 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-string-requirements-30may09-… · Draft Applicant Guidebook, v4 Module 2 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-evaluation-procedures-clean-… 7.2 Summary/analysis of public comments (?) 7.3 Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?15_july_motions · Reading of the motion (Edmon) · Discussion · Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion.) Item 8: Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (5 minutes) 8.1 GNSO Volunteers: · Terry Davis (NCA) · Rafik Dammak (NCSG) · Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias) · Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR) · Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign) · Mike Rodenbaugh (CSG, CBUC) · Zahid Jamil (CSG, CBUC) · Rodney Joffe (RySG, NeuStar · Jaime Wagner (CSG, ISCPC) 8.2 Status report (Chuck Gomes) Item 9: Audio-casting of Council meetings (5 minutes) 9.1 Report on costs & methods (Marika Konings or Rob Hoggarth) 9.2 Implementation status (Marika Konings or Rob Hoggarth) Item 10: Other Business (5 minutes) 10.1 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvement implementation · Note: As part of the motion to approve implementation of the OSC CCT recommendations, the Council resolved to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams. · Any suggestions regarding how to do this? 10.2 Update on Councilor and Council Officer Elections Processes · Refer to Councilor Term Expiration Report for December 2010<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/councilor-term-expiration-report-12jul10-en.…> sent by Glen http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/councilor-term-expiration-report-12jul10-en.… 10.3 Note: Going forward regular WG/WT/DT status updates will be provided in the GNSO Project Status List; a link can be found at the GNSO Home page<http://gnso.icann.org/>. http://gnso.icann.org/ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 11:00UTC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 04:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 12:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 21:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Audiocast
by Marika Konings July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

Dear All, In response to Council Resolution on Enhancing the Transparency of GNSO Council Meetings (20100623-5), the GNSO Policy Staff has explored the different options available with the ICANN IT department to audiocast the GNSO Council meetings going forward. Below you will find an overview of the different options, including possible benefits / disadvantages and a proposed way forward to test and assess the recommended solution as soon as possible. 1. Audiocast via Adobe Connect Description: The conference bridge would be connected via an Adobe Connect room (a separate Adobe Connect room from the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room) so that participants can listen to the audiocast via Adobe Connect. Benefits: § Once system is in place, the GNSO Secretariat can set it up with the assistance of the operator for each conference call so that no additional IT support would be required. Potential disadvantages: § Short delay between real-time audio and audiocast § Requires use of proprietary software § Less suitable for low bandwidth participants § Requires Internet Connection Cost: § Staff resources to set up Adobe Connect room connection for each meeting § One phone connection to audio bridge 2. Separate teleconference-bridge for audiocast participants Description: set up a separate teleconference bridge for audiocast participants. All those on the separate teleconference bridge would then be connected to the Council audio bridge with a muted line. Benefits: § No delay in audiocast § No IT support required § No internet connection required Potential disadvantages: § Requires operator / GNSO Secretariat support (e.g. dial-outs, connection problems) § Potential high costs depending on number of participants § No toll-free numbers available for all countries, although in this case dial-outs can be provided § Requires phone line Cost: § Potentially high, depending on number of participants (toll-free numbers / dial-outs are provided for which the cost range per minute depending on country of origin) 3. Audiocast through web-based interface (similar to how audiocast is provided during ICANN meetings) Description: A stream audio encoder will be set up along with a telephone hybrid. The audio from the conference call will be connected to the stream encoder so that whatever occurs on the conference call will be transmitted to the stream encoder. The stream encoder would them send this to our relay servers and the public could connect to those servers with the URL we provide. Benefits: § Accessible to low bandwidth participants § No proprietary software required to run the audiocast Potential disadvantages: § Approx. 15 second delay between real-time audio and audiocast § Resource intense as it would require IT support for every GNSO Council call to set up audiocast and monitor to ensure quality and continuity. § Requires Internet connection Cost: § IT support time to set up for each call and monitor during the course of the meeting § Audio equipment § One phone connection to audio bridge 4. Automated audiocast stream via web-site Description: A special software programme would be developed which would allow an operator to dial-in to the conference bridge and stream the software via a web control panel. Benefits: § Accessible to low bandwidth participants § No propriety software required to run the audiocast § After initial development, easy to maintain and run by GNSO staff – no continuous IT support required § Apart from initial development, low costs Potential disadvantages: § Approx. 15 second delay between real-time audio and audiocast § Requires Internet connection Cost: § Initial development of software programme by IT team § One phone connection to audio bridge Recommendation: Taking into the accessibility for audiocast participants; staff resources required to implement and maintain the system; and, the overall costs of the different options, ICANN Staff would like to propose to run a trial with the ‘automated audiocast stream via web-site’ option (option 4) to see whether this system would meet the needs identified by the GNSO Council. To this end, our IT Team is in the process of developing a prototype software programme that it hopes to try out during the next GNSO Council meeting on 15 July. On the basis of this trial, ICANN Staff would be able to assess, based on feedback from the GNSO Council, audiocast participants and a technical assessment, whether additional changes or improvements are required. We look forward to receiving your feedback and will be available to answer any questions you might have during our next meeting on 15 July. With best regards, Marika

6 7