July 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

For easy reference -- useful documents related to selecting WHOIS studies
by Liz Gasster July 18, 2010

July 18, 2010

All, I’m sorry I was unable to attend the last Council call when WHOIS studies were discussed, though I am glad that Lisa Phifer was available to provide an overview and answer questions. The purpose of this email is to provide easy reference to four of the key documents that I think are of particular utility as you talk further about which studies to recommend: 1. The attached chart – this is the easiest “snapshot view” of the study options pending at this time. 2. The analysis/report that staff did on the first two study areas once the responses to the first two RFPs were received and analyzed. I hope you will review in particular some of the benefits and constraints that we think are relevant to each study. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… 3. In considering which studies should be done, it may be helpful to consider how the results of each proposed study might be useful in informing future policy making, and to discuss the kinds of policy options that study results might shed light on. Some may view this is premature in the absence of the study results, but I think it could help guide this decision making (about which studies to do) to ensure that results are actually useful and “advance the debate”. Back in April, when I shared the analysis I describe in #2 above, the Council also requested that I go back and identify the WHOIS policy issues that each proposed study is intended to inform. Recognizing that there is a long history of debate, Council members also wanted to understand better the nature of the concerns and viewpoints about these studies that have been expressed to-date. The following is my response to that request. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-follow-up-discussion-05apr10-en.pdf Most of the content was extracted from the original study proposals themselves, since study proposers were asked to specifically state the “utility” of each study being proposed. That means that the ideas stated are often in the words of the study proponents and may not be considered “neutral”, something to be aware of as you review the information. In the 5 April document I also offer some thoughts and insights shared by others on the potential policy “relevance” of other pending WHOIS studies. As I noted at the time, when I assembled this list I noticed that the list includes many things we might learn; it is less expansive on precisely how policies might change. Note also that that these are not my views or staff views. I tried to extract ideas that have been stated already – you may find this a useful way to approach discussion. It may also spur additional thought about the merits or limitations of various study proposals which I would urge you to share with other Council members and staff. Please note also that the terms of reference for the pending RFP on a WHOIS Proxy/Privacy “Abuse” study can be found here. This provides further detail on the parameters envisioned for that study which you may also find relevant. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm Hopefully these references will be useful for your current deliberations. Please let me know also if you would like further information. Staff is also available to participate on stakeholder group and constituency calls to answer questions or provide further detail. Best, Liz

1 0

Action items from the 15 July Council meeting
by Gomes, Chuck July 18, 2010

July 18, 2010

Please note the following Councilor action times coming from our 15 July Council meeting and follow-up in your respective groups with the goal of being prepared to further work on the issues in our next meeting on 5 August: * Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work - Councilors are encouraged to engage in further consultation and discussion in the stakeholder groups and provide input at the next Council meeting on ways to improve the process. * Item 4: Whois Studies - Stakeholder Groups are encouraged to avail themselves of the Staff offer for additional consultation and information on the studies so that informed decisions can be made at the next Council meeting. * Item 6: Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report - The GNSO Secretariat will call for volunteers who may be working group, stakeholder group and or Council members to join the group. While he does not have the time to take the lead on this, Chuck volunteered to assist in this effort if needed. (Note that Glen sent this notice out; please identify any volunteers who would be willing to work on this, possibly members of the RAP WG.) * Item 9: Audio-casting of Council meetings - Councilors are urged to contact their appropriate stakeholder groups and constituencies to provide feedback on the advantages of the audio cast for the next Council meeting. * Item 10.2: Update on Councilor and Council Officer Elections Processes - Stakeholder groups and constituencies are encouraged to organise early elections for council representatives, especially in cases where Councilor terms end in December 2010, so that the elections for the Council chair and vice chairs can be handled in a timely manner. If anyone wants to make a motion or simply propose an idea regarding any of the above for action and/or discussion on 5 August, please do so not later than 28 July so that Councilors can vet these with their respective groups. Chuck

1 0

RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by Gomes, Chuck July 17, 2010

July 17, 2010

With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO. Chuck From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm(a)bizconst.org Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Dear Colleagues I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed processes. I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, where needed. The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has been introduced into the process. I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments. Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011. How about a solution? Or at least an approach: I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his time. I am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the extension. Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the notice. However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different stakeholders. I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees. I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC. I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting privileges to the Council. Marilyn Cade BC Chair

4 5

AW: [liaison6c] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by KnobenW＠telekom.de July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

We have a very uncomfortable situation: - applications have to be accepted until 29 July (2 weeks extension) - to whatever SO/AC they are related. That's what yestarday's announcement update says. And any candidate can rely on this since it was community wide published. - I assume this happened in accordance with the selectors since they're the masters of the overall process. My personal opinion is that therefore the selectors should take the burden of this confusion and shift the announcement of the RT members. 1 week shift is a minimum, 2 weeks would be satisfactory. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Deutsche Telekom AG Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Heinrich-Hertz-Str. 3-7 D - 64295 Darmstadt +49 2244 873999 (Tel.) +49 2151 5300 5206 (PC-Fax) +49 151 1452 5867 (Mobil) http://www.telekom.com <http://www.telekom.com/> Deutsche Telekom AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender) Timotheus Höttges (stellvertretender Vorsitzender) Hamid Akhavan, Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Guido Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE50478376 _____ Von: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Juli 2010 08:25 An: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Marilyn Cade'; glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; 'Steve Metalitz'; cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; 'Harris, Anthony' Betreff: RE: [liaison6c] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Just to add that as Chair of the ISPCP I'll also be formally objecting to the fact that the extension does not apply to the GNSO candidates. This is totally unacceptable. Chuck - You make the point that the issue of 2 or 4 reps must be dealt with as a separate issue. If that's the case, by the same token so must the issue of the timetable for GNSO endorsement. As a minimum any decision on this must require council support, its' far too big an issue for an arbitrary decision by the council chair. This activity gets to the very heart of ICANN's future. Regards Tony From: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 15 July 2010 23:14 To: Marilyn Cade; glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Tony Holmes; Harris, Anthony Subject: RE: [liaison6c] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Marilyn, I'm shocked as well Marilyn but for very different reasons than you. The rationale for my decision is really very simple. This extension was made without consultation with the GNSO and without any consideration of the approved GNSO endorsement process. Once I found out about it (today after the Council meeting, on the last day of the application period), I asked one simple question: will the deadline for GNSO endorsements be extended by the same amount of time? I was told no; GNSO endorsements are still do the end of August. The Council approved a process that gives SGs 21 days to to perform their endorsement processes and then allows time for the Council in consultation with its respective groups. We were given 45 days for our process; with the extension we would have two days and we don't have a Council meeting scheduled until the middle of September. I can see no way to make that work. If the time to execute the process was extended by the same number of days as the application period, which I assumed was the right thing to do, I would not have reacted the way I did. Normally, I would have at least consulted on the Council list before acting; in this case I made the judgment that any more delays would just add to the confusion and seriously hinder our ability to meet the end of August deadline. I am not a aware of a GNSO policy council. I assume you mean the GNSO Council that is tasked with managing the policy development process. I also believe that having 4 reps on the SSR RT is important, but that is a separate issue. I sent a message off in that regard to the selectors this morning. Feel free to send any letter you like. I think it would be good for the Board to know how this came about because it was totally unacceptable. Chuck From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:49 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Tony Holmes; Harris, Anthony Subject: RE: [liaison6c] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Chuck, while I NOTE your 'notice' on this topic,I strongly object to your decision. I have no idea why this is viewed as acceptable. It is not acceptable to my constituency. Frankly, the GNSO poiicy council should have been spending time on advocating to change the number of reps from the GNSO [as an SO] from 2 to 4, as all of us believe is critically important. I have seen no energy on that front and that disappoints me. Instead, I am seeing this notice from you, as chair of the policy council, that surprises me, and actually, shocks me. and, I guess, disappoints me. There is a notice of an extension. I sent that out immediately. It is broadly distributed in the business community. I told people of the extension. Where has your decision come from? an edict from ICANN? If so, then this needs to be made public, and the leaders of the SGs need to be engaged. Let's sort through this and why this can't be accepted. the extension has to be applied to all. All of us are, in the community of leadership in the SGs are working hard to work with the gnso policy council, but to see an announcement from the chair of the policy council that suggests that the extension does not apply to GNSO candidates is mystifying, confusing and cannot be supported by the BC chair. upon receipt of the extension, like any good chair of a constituency, and executive member of a SG, I distributed the ICANN staff announcement about an extension to the BC and other leadership of CSG. I advised my constituency and others of the extension. I could say: I just don't get it. What is the process to decide that an extension that is announced does not apply to the GNSO candidates? I have no idea what you mean by "unless notified to the contrary", but it must be a code for something. Please call me at 202 252 6787 on my cell. At this point, I am writing a letter of concern to the full Board that this extension which is now publicly available, is denied to GNSO candidates. Fill me in on why I should not send that letter. You can call my cell at 202 251 6787. Marilyn Cade BC Chair > Subject: RE: [liaison6c] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:11:39 -0400 > From: cgomes(a)verisign.com > To: Glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org > > > Unless further notified to the contrary, this extension will not apply to GNSO candidates. The deadline for candidates requesting GNSO endorsements remains today, 15 July. > > Chuck Gomes > GNSO Council Chair > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry > > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:39 PM > > To: liaison6c > > Subject: [liaison6c] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a > > Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > > > > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jun10-en.htm > > > > EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer > > Review Team Member > > > > - Review Team 2: Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS - > > - Review Team 4: WHOIS Policy - > > > > Updated: 15 July 2010 > > 13 July 2010 > > 1 July 2010 > > 1 June 2010 > > > > Deadline: 15 July 2010 - 23.59 UTC > > > > Extended to: 29 July 2010 - 23.59 UTC > > > > The Affirmation of Commitments calls for a periodic review of four key > > ICANN objectives, namely: > > > > 1. Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global > > Internet users; > > 2. Preserving security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; > > 3. Promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice; > > 4. WHOIS policy. > > > > Affirmation reviews are to be performed by Review Teams composed of > > volunteer community Members representing the relevant Supporting > > Organizations and Advisory Committees of ICANN. Please refer to the > > Affirmation Reviews web space for full reference. > > > > ICANN now invites interested individuals to apply for a position of > > volunteer Review Team Member on the following Review Teams: > > > > * Preserving security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; > > * WHOIS policy. > > > > This call is solely intended for interested individuals who wish to > > apply in representation of a Supporting Organization (SO) or Advisory > > Committee (AC). Candidatures to serve as independent experts will not > > be considered. > > > > Please download the full text of this Call for Applicants [PDF, 101 > > KB], which contains further instructions and information on the > > application procedure for interested candidates. > > > > Interested candidates, please submit your CV, letter of motivation and > > SO/AC requirements (if applicable) to rtcandidatures(a)icann.org by 29 > > July 2010 - 23:59 UTC. SO/AC requirements may be found at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-2-and- > > 4-en.htm > > > > Launch dates and deadlines: > > > > * 29 July 2010 --> Publication of the list of volunteers > > * End of August 2010 --> Endorsement by SO/ACs > > * First week of September 2010 --> Selectors announce the RT > > Members > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > > GNSO Secretariat > > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > >

3 2

FW: ICANN Blog about Asia/Pacific Regional Registry/Registrar Event
by Glen de Saint Géry July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Forwarded From: Craig Schwartz Would you please share the blog post at http://blog.icann.org/2010/07/icann-to-convene-annual-asiapacific-regional-… with the Council list? Thanks, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

FW: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook
by Gomes, Chuck July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Per the resolution passed yesterday, please note the following. Chuck From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:03 PM To: Kurt Pritz Cc: Diane Schroeder; Gomes, Chuck; David Olive; Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder; olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar; Glen Subject: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook 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. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the GNSO Council Chair Chuck Gomes Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: FW: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

I think we should live with the extension and each SG can do what it needs to, when it needs to, in order to endorse its candidate. That may mean some late applicants will not be considered by one SG or another, but that is likely a reality either way. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:33 am To: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Please note the suggestion in item b below from Olof. It seems like a good solution to me but I would like feedback from Councilors in consultation with your respective groups. This of course is time sensitive so please respond right away as possible. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:09 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO; soac-discussion(a)icann.org; Alice Jansen; Donna Austin Subject: RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Chuck, I think you know that this change occurred with the best of intentions and that there was a technical mishap in the necessarily short time frame for the attempted, but derailed, consultation. That aside, I did the call and I take the blame for the unintended consequences. Now, how can we best redress the situation? a) Is the suggested correction of the announcement the best way to go? b) If not, counting 45 days from 29 July gives 12 September as delivery date for the GNSO endorsed candidate list. In my response to you about the 45 days, I used the phrase "best effort" regarding the end of August deadline. Although certainly putting a squeeze on the sequence of events to precede the launch deadline, I think that is doable, the selectors agendas so permitting. Please advice on the above. Thanks Olof -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:24 PM To: Olof Nordling; William Drake Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO; soac-discussion(a)icann.org; Alice Jansen; Donna Austin Subject: RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Olof, Holding off is the right thing to do Olof. I was trying to stop the confusion as quickly as possible but that didn't work. It is critical that a decision like this never be handled in this manner again. And it is totally unreasonable to expect the GNSO to compact an already cramped process into an even shorter time frame without concurrence from the GNSO. I agree with others that extensions are common and generally good but doing so without comparable extensions for other deadlines should not happen without agreement that those impacted can live with the changes. I had specifically requested 45 days for GNSO processes and that was granted. Moreover, the process the Council approved was fully public so it should not come as a surprise that we required time to implement our endorsement process. Unfortunately, all that seemed to be completely ignored in the decision to extend without extending the corresponding deadline for SO/AC endorsements. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 5:55 AM > To: William Drake > Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO; soac- > discussion(a)icann.org; Alice Jansen; Donna Austin > Subject: RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for > a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > Hi Bill, > Certainly, I'll hold it until notified. > Best > Olof > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:47 AM > To: Olof Nordling > Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO; soac- > discussion(a)icann.org; Alice Jansen; Donna Austin > Subject: Re: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for > a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > Hi Olof > > On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Olof Nordling wrote: > > > > > Dear Chuck, > > It so happens that there is an error in the recently posted > announcement - it still displays on the front page with a deadline of > 15 July - so we need to make a correction anyway. I suggest that we in > this correction explicitly and clearly exclude GNSO applications from > the extension. Would that be satisfactory? We could also make an > additional announcement stating that "Call for GNSO applications is > closed", if you prefer. > > While I've not had time to poll everyone it's a fair bet that as much > as half the council is opposed to the exclusion, so could you please > hold off until we come to an understanding on how to proceed? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > > > I also copy this to the SOAC list (that should work now, I've been > assured). > > > > Very best regards > > Olof > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:19 PM > > To: Glen de Saint Géry; Council GNSO > > Subject: RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants > for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > Importance: High > > > > > > Unless further notified to the contrary, this extension will not > apply to GNSO candidates. The deadline for candidates requesting GNSO > endorsements remains today, 15 July. I have been told that the GNSO > must still provide its endorsements by the end of August; we were > already in a time crunch for implementing our process, it would be > impossible to follow the approved process with this extension or > probably for any extension. > > > > I apologize for any confusion this may create, but as long as our > endorsements are due by the end of August, I see no other alternative. > > > > Chuck Gomes > > GNSO Council Chair > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > >> council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry > >> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:37 PM > >> To: Council GNSO > >> Subject: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a > >> Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > >> > >> > >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jun10-en.htm > >> > >> EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of > Volunteer > >> Review Team Member > >> > >> - Review Team 2: Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS - > >> - Review Team 4: WHOIS Policy - > >> > >> Updated: 15 July 2010 > >> 13 July 2010 > >> 1 July 2010 > >> 1 June 2010 > >> > >> Deadline: 15 July 2010 - 23.59 UTC > >> > >> Extended to: 29 July 2010 - 23.59 UTC > >> > >> The Affirmation of Commitments calls for a periodic review of four > key > >> ICANN objectives, namely: > >> > >> 1. Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of > global > >> Internet users; > >> 2. Preserving security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; > >> 3. Promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice; > >> 4. WHOIS policy. > >> > >> Affirmation reviews are to be performed by Review Teams composed of > >> volunteer community Members representing the relevant Supporting > >> Organizations and Advisory Committees of ICANN. Please refer to the > >> Affirmation Reviews web space for full reference. > >> > >> ICANN now invites interested individuals to apply for a position of > >> volunteer Review Team Member on the following Review Teams: > >> > >> * Preserving security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; > >> * WHOIS policy. > >> > >> This call is solely intended for interested individuals who wish to > >> apply in representation of a Supporting Organization (SO) or > Advisory > >> Committee (AC). Candidatures to serve as independent experts will > not > >> be considered. > >> > >> Please download the full text of this Call for Applicants [PDF, 101 > >> KB], which contains further instructions and information on the > >> application procedure for interested candidates. > >> > >> Interested candidates, please submit your CV, letter of motivation > and > >> SO/AC requirements (if applicable) to rtcandidatures(a)icann.org by 29 > >> July 2010 - 23:59 UTC. SO/AC requirements may be found at: > >> http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-2- > and- > >> 4-en.htm > >> > >> Launch dates and deadlines: > >> > >> * 29 July 2010 --> Publication of the list of volunteers > >> * End of August 2010 --> Endorsement by SO/ACs > >> * First week of September 2010 --> Selectors announce the RT > >> Members > >> > >> Glen de Saint Géry > >> GNSO Secretariat > >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > >> http://gnso.icann.org > >> > >> > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > *********************************************************** >

2 1

FW: Emailing: David Cake - application Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS review team
by Glen de Saint Géry July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Forwarded From: Alice Jansen Hi Glen, This is an additional application for the Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review. David Cake - Please know that as announced by Olof on the SOAC discussions email list, the application deadline has been extended to 29 July 2010 - 23.59 UTC. As a result, you may receive more applications in the upcoming days. Thanks so much, Kind regards Alice The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: David Cake Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 6

RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

I assumed so but wanted to be clear. In any event, as I said, I oppose such a letter. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:36 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "Wolf Knoben" <knobenw(a)telekom.de>, "Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, <glen(a)icann.org>, <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Steve Metalitz" <met(a)msk.com>, <cdigangi(a)inta.org>, <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>, "Harris, Anthony" <harris(a)cabase.org.ar>, <excomm(a)bizconst.org> I of course would run it by the Council first Tim, as I have done in similar circumstances in the past. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:29 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org; icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; Marilyn Cade; Wolf > Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; Steve > Metalitz; cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Harris, > Anthony; excomm(a)bizconst.org > Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants > for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > I oppose it. The "Council Chair" should not take any action like that > without the approval of the Council as a whole. > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants > for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:11 am > To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, > "Wolf Knoben" <knobenw(a)telekom.de>, "Tony Holmes" > <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, <glen(a)icann.org>, > <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Steve Metalitz" <met(a)msk.com>, > <cdigangi(a)inta.org>, <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>, "Harris, > Anthony" <harris(a)cabase.org.ar>, <excomm(a)bizconst.org> > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Mike, > > Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Do you oppose me > signing such a letter as Council Chair? > > Chuck > > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:08 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Wolf Knoben'; 'Tony Holmes'; > glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; 'Steve Metalitz'; > cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; > excomm(a)bizconst.org > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants > for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > > > To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor reason > for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as > opposed to Councilors. If a letter is contemplated to come from the > Council chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council > list. > Personally speaking, I don’t see this as a high priority for Council > or the Council chair to be addressing on such a ‘rush’ basis. I > haven’t noted any more than two members of the BC stating this is a > significant issue, either. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM > To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen(a)icann.org; > liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi(a)inta.org; > sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm(a)bizconst.org > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for > a > Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > > > With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by > Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see > the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, > I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need > to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A > change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive > processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support > from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, > it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a > process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a > compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO. > > Chuck > > From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM > To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen(a)icann.org; > liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi(a)inta.org; > sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm(a)bizconst.org > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of > Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > > > Dear Colleagues > > > I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT > processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already > stressed processes. > > > > I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and > Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related > Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to > ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the > "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work > of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and > responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, > where needed. > > > > The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work > loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, > products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the > Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is > coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and > resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what > makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell > that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller > community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support > the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider > any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and > associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities > 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement > of > the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that > respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. > > > > > > > > Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the > confusion that has been introduced into the process. > > I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or > arguments. > > > > Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the > RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should > contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within > this > SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be > 'better' in 2011. > > > > How about a solution? Or at least an approach: > > > I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his > time. > > > I am going to encourage the business community to submit their > nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the > business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations > of > the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have > taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly > widely distributed the extension. > > > > Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people > welcomed the notice. > > > > However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to > ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for > different stakeholders. > > > > I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting > that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership > capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly > send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the > announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there > remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the > number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the > reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect > for > the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that > we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all > RT > nominees. > > > > I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of > constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and > Chair of GAC. > > > > I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have > posting privileges to the Council. > > > > Marilyn Cade > > BC Chair

1 0

RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

I oppose it. The "Council Chair" should not take any action like that without the approval of the Council as a whole. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:11 am To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "Wolf Knoben" <knobenw(a)telekom.de>, "Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, <glen(a)icann.org>, <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Steve Metalitz" <met(a)msk.com>, <cdigangi(a)inta.org>, <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>, "Harris, Anthony" <harris(a)cabase.org.ar>, <excomm(a)bizconst.org> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Mike, Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Do you oppose me signing such a letter as Council Chair? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Wolf Knoben'; 'Tony Holmes'; glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; 'Steve Metalitz'; cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm(a)bizconst.org Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor reason for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as opposed to Councilors. If a letter is contemplated to come from the Council chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council list. Personally speaking, I don’t see this as a high priority for Council or the Council chair to be addressing on such a ‘rush’ basis. I haven’t noted any more than two members of the BC stating this is a significant issue, either. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm(a)bizconst.org Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO. Chuck From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen(a)icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm(a)bizconst.org Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Dear Colleagues I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed processes. I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, where needed. The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has been introduced into the process. I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments. Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011. How about a solution? Or at least an approach: I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his time. I am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the extension. Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the notice. However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different stakeholders. I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees. I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC. I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting privileges to the Council. Marilyn Cade BC Chair

2 1