July 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Motion and Document Deadline - Wednesday, 28 July 2010 for Council meeting on 5 August 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

Dear Councillors, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on 5 August 2010 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 28 July 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

IMPORTANT: Doodle for attendance at Council meeting 16 September at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

Dear Councillors, Please complete the attached Doodle poll to ascertain attendance at the regularly scheduled Council meeting on 16 September at 11:00 UTC. no later than Monday, 26 July 2010. The results of this poll as well as the one for the two times on 8 September will be provided in our 5 August Council meeting so that we can make a decision on whether to change the September meeting date/time. http://www.doodle.com/zvvzwfkd9xdp4wge Time-zone is active Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Extension of IRTP Part B Public Comment Forum to 8 August
by Glen de Saint Géry July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

Extension of IRTP Part B Public Comment Forum to 8 August http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtp-b-initial-report For your information, the public comment forum on the IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report has been extended to 8 August 2010. To submit your comments, please go to http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#irtp-b-…. Please add a comment : irtp-b-initial-report(a)icann.org To view the comments : http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-initial-report/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Extension of IRTP Part B Public Comment Forum to 8 August
by Marika Konings July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

For your information, the public comment forum on the IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report has been extended to 8 August. To submit your comments, please go to http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#irtp-b-…. With best regards, Marika

1 0

FW: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by Gomes, Chuck July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

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 > *********************************************************** >

3 4

RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by Gomes, Chuck July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

Yes Glen. I meant Tuesday, 20 July (today). Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:31 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Subject: RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for > a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > Chuck, > > Do you mean Tuesday, 20 July? > Will Olof also put out a notice on the website? > > Thanks > Glen > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: mardi 20 juillet 2010 00:37 > To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for > a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > > I have received very little feedback on the following. Is anyone > opposed to the extension of the GNSO endorsement deadline to 12 > September instead of 31 August? If I do not see any objections by the > end of the day on Tuesday, 19 July, I will communicate with Olof that > this seems like a workable plan and see if we can get official approval > of it. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:33 AM > > To: Council GNSO > > Subject: FW: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants > for > > a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 > > > > > > 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 > > > *********************************************************** > > > > > >

1 0

FW: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

Forwarded From: Diane Schroeder Dear Glen - I will forward this but please note for future transmissions, items to be sent to the board should be sent to secretary(a)icann.org<mailto:secretary@icann.org> - that way they dont get lost in my inbox. Thanks Diane On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: Dear Diane, Please transmit the email below to the Board for information. No action is needed. Please acknowledge receipt so that the Council can be informed that the Board has been copied as requested. Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: vendredi 16 juillet 2010 21:03 To: Kurt Pritz 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Diane Schroeder Director of Board Support ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292

1 0

ICANN job descriptions for Vice President of Global Partnerships and the Manager of Regional Relationships, Latin America
by Bruce Tonkin July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

Hello All, These roles at ICANN may be of interest to some in your stakeholder communities: http://hostedjobs.openhire.com/epostings/submit.cfm?fuseaction=app.jobin fo&jobid=213497&company_id=16025&version=1&source=ONLINE&jobOwner=973076 &aid=1 http://hostedjobs.openhire.com/epostings/submit.cfm?fuseaction=app.jobin fo&jobid=213498&company_id=16025&version=1&source=ONLINE&jobOwner=973076 &aid=1 Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

Of course, that's what we try to do for every meeting - factual status reports from WG Liaisons or Chairs. Those are a part of the public record. If the Council wants to request Staff that such a status report on the VI WG be communicated directly to the Board, that's fine. That said, I still have seen no justification for changing the date of the Council meeting that's been set for months and that some of us have made hard plans around. If some Councilors choose IGF functions over ICANN functions that's their choice. Others have made other plans for the week of the 8th. I don't see why one group should have priority over another. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:55 am To: Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <Glen(a)icann.org> I agree with Stephane and support his suggestion. I think the Council should put in at least a brief communication about the preliminary report rather than say nothing at this point - although a few Board members are (as Tim mentioned) very well aware of the state of things, it would be preferable if the whole Board and the community can receive something from us, however short or bland. 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: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>To:"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>CC:<tim(a)godaddy.com>, <krosette(a)cov.com>, <Glen(a)icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 7/20/2010 3:59 AMSubject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 We might just want to think about communicating something as a response to the initial report that the VI WG will put before us, but holding up on any vote until we can either get nearly all council members in attendance or we get a final report from the WG. If we do decide to take this path, perhaps a couple of sentences in the minutes and we ask Glen to inform the Board secretariat accordingly? This way, we both do our job as custodians of the policy process in informing the Board of our current progress and we don't go overboard in acting on the WG's prelim report. Thoughts? Stéphane Le 20 juil. 2010 à 01:27, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : > When a request is made, I make it a practice to respond even if there is not much to say. Of course, if the Council does not want me to respond, I won't. > > Chuck > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Rosette,Kristina <krosette(a)cov.com>; Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>; Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Sent: Mon Jul 19 19:13:18 2010 > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > Communicate what? That we have nothing to communicate? I don't see the > point. New gTLDs are the biggest project Staff is currently working on > and VI is the biggest open issue of it. At least two, and I think more, > Board members follow the list closely and even join the calls. Believe, > they know exactly where we are. > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:09 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > So what are we debating? Shouldn't we communicate that? I am not > suggesting anything different. But I have become real gun shy about > sending any communication as chair without Council approval. > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:01 PM >> To: Gomes, Chuck >> Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; >> Stéphane_Van_Gelder >> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >> >> We have not ignored it, we just have no recommendations and the Council >> should not arbitrarily create any. The WG has tried, and I believe they >> intend to continue on unless the Council tells them to stop. >> >> Tim >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:20 pm >> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> >> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry >> <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, >> Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >> >> >> Tell me this Tim: The Board requested that the VI PDP WG provide some >> recommendations; as the manager of the process, do we just ignore their >> request? >> >> Chuck >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] >>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:18 PM >>> To: Gomes, Chuck >>> Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; >>> Stéphane_Van_Gelder >>> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum >>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>> >>> Chuck, >>> >>> Difficult? It's not difficult at all. The WG is nowhere near >> consensus. >>> I know of no reason why we have to call a special meeting or move the >>> scheduled one to act on some motion to notify the Board of something >>> they already know. That makes absolutely no sense. Seems that at >> every >>> turn we keep looking for ways to make more work for ourselves. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum >>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >>> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:57 pm >>> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> >>> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry >>> <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, >>> Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >>> >>> We would be voting on whether to send a response to the Board's >> request >>> that may or may not include the initial report. That simply >>> communicates >>> to the Board that the Council was involved as a manager of the >> ongoing >>> PDP. >>> >>> Why make this more difficult that it already is? >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:37 PM >>>> To: Gomes, Chuck >>>> Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; >>>> Stéphane_Van_Gelder >>>> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum >>>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>>> >>>> When did we start voting on initial reports? What I am saying is >> that >>>> it >>>> is not a final report and so there will be nothing to vote on. I >>> don't >>>> believe it is appropriate to make something up to satisfy some >>>> perceived >>>> requirement of the Board, and I don't see any such requirement. I >>> also >>>> don't know of any rule that says the Board cannot read or consider >> an >>>> initial report and the comments that are submitted in regards to it >>>> without Council approval. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum >>>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >>>> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm >>>> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Tim >>>> Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> >>>> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" >>>> <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that there are two concerns about the regularly scheduled >>> meeting >>>> on 16 September: the conflict with the IGF meeting for some subset >> of >>>> Councilors and the fact that it is after the Board deadline for >>>> document >>>> submission in advance of their retreat. >>>> >>>> Article X of the Bylaws, paragraph 4 of Section 3 says, "4. The >> GNSO >>>> Council is responsible for managing the policy development process >> of >>>> the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSO Operating >>>> Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, >>> provided >>>> that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each >> House." >>>> The >>>> intent in our September meeting is simply to fulfill our management >>>> responsibility with regard to a request from the Board. I believe >>> that >>>> means that we need to approve sending the VI report to the Board. >>> That >>>> should not be interpreted to be more than that. It is not the >>> Council's >>>> role to change anything that the VI PDP WG has in its report. We >>> could >>>> go back to the WG with questions or we could decide not to send >> their >>>> report to the Board. Whatever we decide to do, it requires a >> majority >>>> vote of each House to do it. >>>> >>>> My goal in requesting another Doodle poll was to maximize >> attendance >>>> while still accommodating the two issues mentioned above. Under >>> current >>>> procedures, absentee voting would not be allowed, but it is >> actually >>>> possible that the latest GCOT recommended changes to the GNSO >>> Operating >>>> Procedures could be approved before our September meeting. If that >>>> occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote. >>>> >>>> Chuck >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- >>>>> council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM >>>>> To: Tim Ruiz >>>>> Cc: Rosette,Kristina; "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"; Council GNSO >>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum >>>>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I understand the quorum issue. All I'm saying is that we should >>> also >>>>> show that we are determined to move on this as soon as we can, >> not >>>> that >>>>> we are holding back. But if there's nothing to vote on come the >>> 8th, >>>>> this is a moot point anyway... >>>>> >>>>> Stéphane >>>>> >>>>> Le 19 juil. 2010 à 18:31, Tim Ruiz a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a >>> minimum >>>>>> quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will >> be >>>>> nothing >>>>>> to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is >>> not >>>>> yet >>>>>> producing a final report and the Council does not create >> policy. >>>> The >>>>>> Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read >>> the >>>>>> report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it >>> would >>>>> be >>>>>> unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any >>>> public >>>>>> comment collected on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for >> maximum >>>>>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>>>>> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> >>>>>> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am >>>>>> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >>>>>> Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry >>>>> <Glen(a)icann.org>, >>>>>> "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many >>> people >>>>>> absent OR restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee >>>> voting >>>>> is >>>>>> permitted. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina >>>>>> Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO >>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for >> maximum >>>>>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>>>>> >>>>>> But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines >>> and >>>>> as >>>>>> you both know, being part of the group as you are, there's been >> a >>>>>> tremendous amount of work and effort by the WG in that regard. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out >>> all >>>>> the >>>>>> stops to get this done asap..? >>>>>> >>>>>> Stéphane >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled >> at >>>>> moving it after some of us plan around them), no votes should be >>>> taken. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM >>>>>>> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry >>>>>>> Cc: Council GNSO >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for >>> maximum >>>>>>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do >> is >>>>> favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to >>> be >>>> in >>>>> conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer >>>> would >>>>> be available if we don't move it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be >>>> submitting >>>>> any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an >>>> initial >>>>> report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the >> Council >>>> to >>>>> take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be >> out >>>> for >>>>> public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it >>> and >>>>> taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our >>> tradition >>>>> of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is >>> unlikely >>>>> that any action would be taken anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>> Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum >>>>>>> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 >>>>>>> From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >>>>>>> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am >>>>>>> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Councillors, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 >>>>> September >>>>>>> meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of >>> our >>>>>>> regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to >> finalize >>>>> action >>>>>>> on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board >>> information >>>> on >>>>>>> VI >>>>>>> 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results >>>>> indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the >> contracted >>>>> party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a >>>> meeting >>>>> at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this >>> poll >>>> is >>>>> to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we >>> use >>>>> for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not >>>>> improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold >>> the >>>>> meeting at 11:00 UTC." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no >>> later >>>>> than Monday, 26 July 2010. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Time-zone is active >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Glen de Saint Géry >>>>>>> GNSO Secretariat >>>>>>> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >

1 0

RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Tim Ruiz July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

Communicate what? That we have nothing to communicate? I don't see the point. New gTLDs are the biggest project Staff is currently working on and VI is the biggest open issue of it. At least two, and I think more, Board members follow the list closely and even join the calls. Believe, they know exactly where we are. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:09 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> So what are we debating? Shouldn't we communicate that? I am not suggesting anything different. But I have become real gun shy about sending any communication as chair without Council approval. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:01 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; > Stéphane_Van_Gelder > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > We have not ignored it, we just have no recommendations and the Council > should not arbitrarily create any. The WG has tried, and I believe they > intend to continue on unless the Council tells them to stop. > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:20 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > > Tell me this Tim: The Board requested that the VI PDP WG provide some > recommendations; as the manager of the process, do we just ignore their > request? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:18 PM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; > > Stéphane_Van_Gelder > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > Chuck, > > > > Difficult? It's not difficult at all. The WG is nowhere near > consensus. > > I know of no reason why we have to call a special meeting or move the > > scheduled one to act on some motion to notify the Board of something > > they already know. That makes absolutely no sense. Seems that at > every > > turn we keep looking for ways to make more work for ourselves. > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:57 pm > > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > > Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > > > We would be voting on whether to send a response to the Board's > request > > that may or may not include the initial report. That simply > > communicates > > to the Board that the Council was involved as a manager of the > ongoing > > PDP. > > > > Why make this more difficult that it already is? > > > > Chuck > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:37 PM > > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO; > > > Stéphane_Van_Gelder > > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > When did we start voting on initial reports? What I am saying is > that > > > it > > > is not a final report and so there will be nothing to vote on. I > > don't > > > believe it is appropriate to make something up to satisfy some > > > perceived > > > requirement of the Board, and I don't see any such requirement. I > > also > > > don't know of any rule that says the Board cannot read or consider > an > > > initial report and the comments that are submitted in regards to it > > > without Council approval. > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm > > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Tim > > > Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > > > Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" > > > <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > Note that there are two concerns about the regularly scheduled > > meeting > > > on 16 September: the conflict with the IGF meeting for some subset > of > > > Councilors and the fact that it is after the Board deadline for > > > document > > > submission in advance of their retreat. > > > > > > Article X of the Bylaws, paragraph 4 of Section 3 says, "4. The > GNSO > > > Council is responsible for managing the policy development process > of > > > the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSO Operating > > > Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, > > provided > > > that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each > House." > > > The > > > intent in our September meeting is simply to fulfill our management > > > responsibility with regard to a request from the Board. I believe > > that > > > means that we need to approve sending the VI report to the Board. > > That > > > should not be interpreted to be more than that. It is not the > > Council's > > > role to change anything that the VI PDP WG has in its report. We > > could > > > go back to the WG with questions or we could decide not to send > their > > > report to the Board. Whatever we decide to do, it requires a > majority > > > vote of each House to do it. > > > > > > My goal in requesting another Doodle poll was to maximize > attendance > > > while still accommodating the two issues mentioned above. Under > > current > > > procedures, absentee voting would not be allowed, but it is > actually > > > possible that the latest GCOT recommended changes to the GNSO > > Operating > > > Procedures could be approved before our September meeting. If that > > > occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM > > > > To: Tim Ruiz > > > > Cc: Rosette,Kristina; "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"; Council GNSO > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand the quorum issue. All I'm saying is that we should > > also > > > > show that we are determined to move on this as soon as we can, > not > > > that > > > > we are holding back. But if there's nothing to vote on come the > > 8th, > > > > this is a moot point anyway... > > > > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 18:31, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a > > minimum > > > > > quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will > be > > > > nothing > > > > > to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is > > not > > > > yet > > > > > producing a final report and the Council does not create > policy. > > > The > > > > > Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read > > the > > > > > report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it > > would > > > > be > > > > > unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any > > > public > > > > > comment collected on it. > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for > maximum > > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > > > > > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am > > > > > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > > > > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > > > <Glen(a)icann.org>, > > > > > "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > > Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many > > people > > > > > absent OR restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee > > > voting > > > > is > > > > > permitted. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM > > > > > To: Rosette, Kristina > > > > > Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO > > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for > maximum > > > > > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > > > > > > > But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines > > and > > > > as > > > > > you both know, being part of the group as you are, there's been > a > > > > > tremendous amount of work and effort by the WG in that regard. > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out > > all > > > > the > > > > > stops to get this done asap..? > > > > > > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > > > > Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled > at > > > > moving it after some of us plan around them), no votes should be > > > taken. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > > > >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM > > > > >> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry > > > > >> Cc: Council GNSO > > > > >> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for > > maximum > > > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do > is > > > > favor one group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to > > be > > > in > > > > conflict over those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer > > > would > > > > be available if we don't move it? > > > > >> > > > > >> And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be > > > submitting > > > > any consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an > > > initial > > > > report not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the > Council > > > to > > > > take action on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be > out > > > for > > > > public comment so the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it > > and > > > > taking any of it into consideration. In addition, given our > > tradition > > > > of putting an action off for one meeting if requested it is > > unlikely > > > > that any action would be taken anyway. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Tim > > > > >> > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > > > > >> Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum > > > > >> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010 > > > > >> From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > > > > >> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am > > > > >> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear Councillors, > > > > >> > > > > >> On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 > > > > September > > > > >> meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of > > our > > > > >> regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to > finalize > > > > action > > > > >> on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board > > information > > > on > > > > >> VI > > > > >> 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results > > > > indicated that a quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the > contracted > > > > party house and 8 of 13 in the non-contracted party house for a > > > meeting > > > > at the regularly planned time of 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this > > poll > > > is > > > > to see if there would be stronger attendance at the other time we > > use > > > > for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. If the new poll does not > > > > improve the availability of Councilors, we will go ahead and hold > > the > > > > meeting at 11:00 UTC." > > > > >> > > > > >> Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no > > later > > > > than Monday, 26 July 2010. > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq > > > > >> > > > > >> Time-zone is active > > > > >> > > > > >> Thank you very much. > > > > >> Kind regards > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Glen de Saint Géry > > > > >> GNSO Secretariat > > > > >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > > > >> http://gnso.icann.org > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

5 4