August 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] GNSO Council interaction with the Board WG recommendations
by Stéphane Van Gelder 30 Aug '10

30 Aug '10

Thank you for the feedback David, much appreciated. Stéphane Le 30 août 2010 à 11:13, Taylor, David a écrit : > That summarises our discussions concisely and I have nothing to add. Thanks Stephane. > > David > > David Taylor > Partner > Hogan Lovells International LLP > 6 Avenue Kléber, 75116 Paris, France > Tel:+33 (0) 1 53 67 47 47 > Fax:+33 (0) 1 53 67 47 48 > Email:drd@hoganlovells.com > www.hoganlovells.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> > To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Sent: Fri Aug 27 21:30:23 2010 > Subject: [council] GNSO Council interaction with the Board WG recommendations > > > Fellow Councillors, > > In anticipation of our next teleconference on Sept 8, please find below the recommendations of the group tasked with discussing our interaction with the Board. > > If any members of that group feel there is something that I have missed/forgotten, please feel free to comment. > > > - The Sunday dinner is a good socializing event. > > - Another session with the Board should be held during the ICANN meeting week. > > - This should be scheduled before the Sunday dinner, perhaps as a 1-hour session on Sunday at 4pm. > > - The dinner should happen off-site, but somewhere close to the venue, at 6pm, on the first Sunday of the ICANN meeting week. > > - A structured agenda is required to make the 4pm session work, and to ensure broad attendance. This should be worked on by the GNSO Council through advance planning and liaising with the relevant entities. > > > Unless anyone objects, I suggest this group be considered disbanded after our Sept 8 meeting and I would ask Glen to close the group's email list. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > >

1 0

GNSO Council interaction with the Board WG recommendations
by Stéphane Van Gelder 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

Fellow Councillors, In anticipation of our next teleconference on Sept 8, please find below the recommendations of the group tasked with discussing our interaction with the Board. If any members of that group feel there is something that I have missed/forgotten, please feel free to comment. - The Sunday dinner is a good socializing event. - Another session with the Board should be held during the ICANN meeting week. - This should be scheduled before the Sunday dinner, perhaps as a 1-hour session on Sunday at 4pm. - The dinner should happen off-site, but somewhere close to the venue, at 6pm, on the first Sunday of the ICANN meeting week. - A structured agenda is required to make the 4pm session work, and to ensure broad attendance. This should be worked on by the GNSO Council through advance planning and liaising with the relevant entities. Unless anyone objects, I suggest this group be considered disbanded after our Sept 8 meeting and I would ask Glen to close the group's email list. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 26 August 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 26 August, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20100826.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community WG charter on "Recommendation 6"
by Rosemary Sinclair 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

Even moderate Govts such as Australia (we actually don't have one just at the moment - a hung Parliament) have questions about ICANN's effectiveness as a public interest policy setting body - the question for them is whether participants in a commercial market can handle questions of public interest effectively, given the market based incentives.... BTW they are not real keen on ITU either .... I think Bill gives us wise counsel Rosemary -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of William Drake Sent: Fri 8/27/2010 5:15 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Council GNSO Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community WG charter on "Recommendation 6" Hi Stéphane Ok, understood. It's not obvious to me that giving this a little more time to try to reach consensus would single-handidly bring to a screeching halt an otherwise rapid roll out, but whatever, let's leave aside that hardy perennial. Here's another scenario. On the one hand, things get a bit contentious with the US, Canada, and other friendly OECD types that have been drivers here. Maybe can be smoothed over, but could play badly in the beltway. On the other hand, the governments (including some represented in GAC) that have been persistently critical of ICANN, and in particular express grave concern about ICANN being ill-suited to the adoption of the global public policy frameworks they insist are needed, go to the ITU Plenipotentiary in October and say see, ICANN's this American-dominated corporate cabal that doesn't take our concerns seriously, even on something as fundamental to our sovereignty as 'sensitive' strings. Which feeds into the other narratives and ambitions in play, and could increase support for various problematic positions and outcomes with which ICANN and the Internet more generally will have to contend going forward. Who knows, maybe we can even breath some new life into the 'global registry' proposal. That'd be a nice trick. I guess we just have different views on how to deal with governments and whether it matters. Talk to you soon, Bill On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > > Bill, > > I can only concur with Tim's response. If you are asking me to justify a WG that I don't even think should exist in the first place at this late stage in the new gTLD program discussions, I'm afraid I cannot. > > But given that this WG exists, I think it crucial that it be given a timeline that is coherent with what's really happening in the new gTLD program at the moment. > > And that is that the Board is dedicating its September retreat to this topic, presumably with the intent of moving it forward enough to be able to sign off on a final AG at Cartagena. > > I am fully supportive of this intent and think that if ICANN is not able to bring the program to a close at the end of this year, we risk becoming irrelevant and farcical in the eyes of the world at large. > > It will never be possible to iron out all the issues, but God knows we've tried and we haven't taken a foolhardy approach to all of this. It is time to launch, now! > > If there is a need to discuss MAPO then fine, let's do it within the allotted timeline. > > The new gTLD program is a GNSO policy. One of its major premises is that new gTLDs should be rolled out in a timely and predictable manner. This has not been the case. > > It's high time the GNSO took a firm stance on defending the policy it approved by supermajority vote way back in the summer of 2007. > > Stéphane > > Le 26 août 2010 à 18:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > >> This is starting to sound like the Whois debates. >> >> The GNSO discussed/debated these issues thoroughly and agreed on the >> resultant policy. We should continue to support that policy and point to >> the record of those discussions. If relatively minor changes in the >> language would be helpful (legal/illegal vs. mapo), we can simply form a >> drafting team to work on that and create a response to the GAC and >> direction to Staff. >> >> >> Tim >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community >>> WG charter on "Recommendation 6" >>> From: William Drake >>> Date: Thu, August 26, 2010 10:59 am >>> To: StÃ©phane Van Gelder >>> Cc: Council GNSO >>> >>> Hi Stéphane >>> >>> While debating across two lists has some drawbacks, since you've raised this here I have two questions. Given a) the evolving state of the GAC's thinking, and the fact that it's divided a bit with a few pushing a stance that arguably is inconsistent and potentially worse than MAPO while many other members appear not to have settled on a stance and weighed in as yet, and b) there's a whole AC (ALAC) that opposes MAPO as is, a position with which NCUC concurs, >>> >>> *could you give me some vision of the scenario in which we resolve everything on a consensual basis in less than three weeks? how does that work, the two AC's and other unhappy types just relent and say never mind, sorry to have disturbed you, we're fine with it as is? >>> *what kind of signal would a hard deadline of 13 Sept convey to the GAC about the seriousness with which we regard their objections and the extent to which we are prepared to engage with them in problem solving? >>> >>> Just wondering, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: >>> As an FYI to the Council, I think I should add to Liz' message that the redline part is a discussion that Avri and I have started. I am arguing that the WG should be very strict in its goal to finish its work by the suggested Sept 13 deadline (which is calculated to allow the group's report to be sent to the Board in time for the September retreat). >>> >>> As such, I suggested as you can see in the redline that the word "preliminary" be stricken. My rationale being that the group should not start off with the expectation that its set deadline is only for an interim report, but instead work towards reaching its final objectives in the allotted time. >>> >>> This suggestion has met with widespread support from the group. Avri however suggested that written this way, the final sentence of the ToR's timeline leaves the document a little unfinished. She suggested adding the sentence shown. I am not in favour, as it reintroduces the notion that it's OK to miss the deadline and carry on working after that deadline has passed. Plus it seems obvious that if the group feels there is more work to do, it will undertake to do it. >>> >>> This point is still being discussed by the group. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Stéphane >>> >>> Le 26 août 2010 à 02:41, Liz Gasster a écrit : >>> All, >>> >>> Attached please find the draft charter Terms of Reference for this new community working group, as recently updated by drafting team participants. Redline items are noted for further discussion. >>> >>> Thanks, Liz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>

1 0

RE: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community WG charter on "Recommendation 6"
by Tim Ruiz 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

This is starting to sound like the Whois debates. The GNSO discussed/debated these issues thoroughly and agreed on the resultant policy. We should continue to support that policy and point to the record of those discussions. If relatively minor changes in the language would be helpful (legal/illegal vs. mapo), we can simply form a drafting team to work on that and create a response to the GAC and direction to Staff. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community > WG charter on "Recommendation 6" > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Thu, August 26, 2010 10:59 am > To: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hi Stéphane > > While debating across two lists has some drawbacks, since you've raised this here I have two questions. Given a) the evolving state of the GAC's thinking, and the fact that it's divided a bit with a few pushing a stance that arguably is inconsistent and potentially worse than MAPO while many other members appear not to have settled on a stance and weighed in as yet, and b) there's a whole AC (ALAC) that opposes MAPO as is, a position with which NCUC concurs, > > *could you give me some vision of the scenario in which we resolve everything on a consensual basis in less than three weeks? how does that work, the two AC's and other unhappy types just relent and say never mind, sorry to have disturbed you, we're fine with it as is? > *what kind of signal would a hard deadline of 13 Sept convey to the GAC about the seriousness with which we regard their objections and the extent to which we are prepared to engage with them in problem solving? > > Just wondering, > > Bill > > > On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > As an FYI to the Council, I think I should add to Liz' message that the redline part is a discussion that Avri and I have started. I am arguing that the WG should be very strict in its goal to finish its work by the suggested Sept 13 deadline (which is calculated to allow the group's report to be sent to the Board in time for the September retreat). > > As such, I suggested as you can see in the redline that the word "preliminary" be stricken. My rationale being that the group should not start off with the expectation that its set deadline is only for an interim report, but instead work towards reaching its final objectives in the allotted time. > > This suggestion has met with widespread support from the group. Avri however suggested that written this way, the final sentence of the ToR's timeline leaves the document a little unfinished. She suggested adding the sentence shown. I am not in favour, as it reintroduces the notion that it's OK to miss the deadline and carry on working after that deadline has passed. Plus it seems obvious that if the group feels there is more work to do, it will undertake to do it. > > This point is still being discussed by the group. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Le 26 août 2010 à 02:41, Liz Gasster a écrit : > All, > > Attached please find the draft charter Terms of Reference for this new community working group, as recently updated by drafting team participants. Redline items are noted for further discussion. > > Thanks, Liz > > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > >

4 3

Updates GNSO Council agenda 26 August 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

Dear Council Members, Please see the updated gNSO Council agenda on the Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_26_august_2010 There is nothing new, except two links have been added in: Item 5: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (20 Minutes) · 5.2 Overview of the report (Margie Milam) http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-update-vi-revised-initial… Item 6: GAC requested community working group on new gTLD Recommendation 6 (15 Minutes) · 6.1 Refer to draft terms of reference (ToR): (this is the updated TOR link that is posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/new-gtld-recommendations-6-community-wg-25aug1… In addition, the attached Meeting Quorum Table indicates the doodle poll results to establish a possible date for the Council meetings after October, that is, in November and the first meeting in January 2011. There will be quorum at the following meetings: Thursday, 18 November at 11:00UTC, Wednesday, 8 December Cartagena meeting, time tbd, Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:00 UTC Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community WG charter on "Recommendation 6"
by Liz Gasster 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

All, Attached please find the draft charter Terms of Reference for this new community working group, as recently updated by drafting team participants. Redline items are noted for further discussion. Thanks, Liz

4 3

Audio Cast & Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 26 August 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Please note that the GNSO Council Meeting Audio Streaming link has changed: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Please distribute this link to all the members of the community so that they can listen to the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday, 26 August 2010 at 20:00 UTC. This will be the link for all GNSO meetings going forward. Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 26 August 2010. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_26_august_2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26aug10-en.htm This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 20:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 13:00 PDT; 15:00 CDT; 16:00 EST; 17:00 Buenos Aires; 17:00 Brazil; 22:00 CET; 24:00 Moscow Friday, 27 August 01:00 Pakistan; 04:00 Hong Kong; 05:00 Tokyo, 06:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * 5 August 2010 meeting - Approved 21 August 2010. Item 2: Overview of New Procedures Related to Voting (15 minutes) 2.1 Refer to: * GNSO Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf * Cheat sheet for new voting procedures Visual Procedures Map<file:///\\council\visual-procedures-map-en.htm> covering abstentions, absences, and vacancies http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm Abstention Notification Form<file:///\\council\abstention-notification-form-en.htm> to be completed by an officer of the abstaining Councilor's appointing organization (Stakeholder Group or Constituency, as appropriate) http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm 2.2 Brief Overview (Ken Bour) 2.3 Discussion Item 3: Whois Studies (25 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: * Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… * RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm * Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/whois/whois-studies-chart-30jul10-en.pdf * Brief overview of the study choices presented by Lisa Phifer on 15 July: http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-whois-report… 3.2 Highlights of Report for Whois Study # 3 (Liz Gasster) 3.3 Motion to proceed with Study # 1 * Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?26_august_motions * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) 3.4 Continuing discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies 3.5 Next steps? Item 4: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (25 minutes) 4.1 Refer to: * GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ * GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm * GNSO Whois RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm 4.2 SG primary & alternate endorsements: CSG NCSG RrSG RySG SSR Primary Ken Silva SSR Alternate(s) Whois Primary Kathy Kleiman Whois Alternate(s) Kim G. von Arx 4.3 Summary of Geographic & Gender Diversity for SG Primary Endorsements: # from Africa # from Asia/Pacific # from Europe # from Latin America & Caribbean # from North America # Male # Female 0 4.4 Possible Candidates to Improve Diversity: Africa Asia/Pacific Europe Latin America & Caribbean North America Male # Female None 4.5 Should the GNSO add one or two candidates to improve diversity of either RT slate? * Discussion * Next steps? [e.g., motion(s) for consideration on 8 September] * Note: GNSO endorsement slate is due to Selectors not later than 12 September Item 5: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (20 Minutes) 5.1 Refer to Revised Initial Report from the WG (insert link) 5.2 Overview of the report (Stéphane Van Gelder) * Discussion * Next steps? * Deadline for submission of report to the Board for their retreat: 13 September 5.3 Refer to motion (if any): https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?26_august_motions * Discussion * Vote * Follow-up actions Item 6: Ongoing Action Items (10 Minutes) 6.1 Next Steps for Prioritization of GNSO Projects (Chuck Gomes) 6.2 Registration Abuse Policies WG Recommendations Action Plan (Marika Konings) 6.3 Suggested improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings * (Wendy Seltzer) * Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September. 6.4 Suggestions for GNSO Council interaction with the Board * (Stéphane Van Gelder) * Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September. 6.5 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) 6.6 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) 6.7 Council meeting dates for November, December & January (Glen de Saint Géry) Item 7: Other Business (5 Minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 20:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 06:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ________________________________________ For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER Call for volunteers to serve on Standing Committee to implement recommendations from GNSO Improvements Work Teams
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Dear All, As part of the motion http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ 20100623-2 to approve the implementation of the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) recommendations, the Council resolved to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams. This is a call for volunteers to serve on this Standing Committee. Participation is open to the GNSO community and not restricted to councilors. To date these are the following volunteers for the standing committee: Tatyana Khramtsova - Registrars Stakeholder Group Ray Fassett - Registries Stakeholder Group Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP Please contact the GNSO Secretariat at <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> if you are interested in working on the Standing Committee so that you can be added to the mailing list created for this work. Please respond no later than 18 August 2010. Are there any other volunteers? Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

NCSG RT endorsements, diversity
by William Drake 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Hi, NCSG endorses: WHOIS: Kim G. Von Arx (Canada/Switzerland) SSR: David Cake (Australia) BTW, our SSR endorsee pool comprises three USian men and one Australian man. This obviously fails both the geographic and gender diversity tests we approved: 3. In making their selections, stakeholder groups should give due consideration to the following diversity objectives: *Unless the applicant pool does not allow, no more than half of the GNSO’s nominees should come from the same geographical region; and *Unless the applicant pool does not allow, the GNSO’s nominees should not all be of the same gender. We could somewhat improve the blend by following the diversity procedure and voting to add to the pool George Asare Sakyi. People might want to review his application and talk to their SGs before the Council call. The WHOIS endorsee pool comprises two USian women, one Canadian man, and one USian man. So on gender diversity we're good, on geographic not so much. However, there's nothing that can be done about it given the applicant pool, seven USian and one non, who's already in. Going forward, we might want to encourage more diverse folks from our SGs to apply. Cheers, Bill

2 3