August 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [soac-mapo] MP3 / Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process mailing list (Rec6 CDG-WG)
by Gomes, Chuck 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

In case anyone is interested in listening to the MP3 of the teleconference call of the Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process, here it is along with a list of participants. Chuck From: owner-soac-mapo(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gisella Gruber-White Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:28 AM To: soac-mapo(a)icann.org Subject: [soac-mapo] MP3 / Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process mailing list (Rec6 CDG-WG) Dear All, Please note the next Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process (Rec6 CDG-WG) call is scheduled on Monday 30 August 2010 at 2000 UTC. This call is currently scheduled for 1h30h. Please find the MP3 recording of the Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process (Rec6 CDG-WG) call held Monday 23 August 2010 at 1700 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-20100823.mp3 ALAC Cheryl Langdon Orr - ALAC chiar Alan Greenberg - ALAC Olivier Crépin-Leblond - ALAC Carlton Samuels -ALAC Evan Leibovitch - ALAC Commercial Stakeholder Group Marilyn Cade - CBUC Jon Nevett - CBUC Non Commercial Stakeholder group Avri Doria William Drake Mary Wong Robin Gross Registrars Stakeholder Group Stephane van Gelder - RrSG - GNSO Council vice chair Registries Stakeholder Group Chuck Gomes - GNSO Council chair Ken Stubbs Nominating Committee Appointees ... Individuals Richard Tindal Dirk Krischenowski Jothan Frakes Steve Pinkos Stuart Lawly Paul Stahura GAC Frank Marsh - GAC - New Zealand representative Bertrand de la Chapelle - GAC - French representative Staff David Olive - VP Policy Development Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support Marika Konings - Policy Director Gisella Gruber-White - GNSO & At-Large Staff Support Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Apologies: Heather Dryden - Interim GAC Chair - Canadian representative Michele Neylon - RrSG Caroline Greer Sebastien Bachollet - ALAC Please let me know if your name has been left off the list. Thank you Kind regards Gisella ---------------------------- Gisella Gruber-White At-Large & GNSO Staff Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: gisella.gruber-white(a)icann.org Tel: +44 7545 334 360 Skype ID: gisella.gw

1 0

Documents in preparation for the GNSO Council meeting 26 August at 20:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

Dear Council Members, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 26 August at 20:00 UTC, please note the Pending Projects List which includes pending GNSO Council projects. It does not reflect the full granularity of each task, just current status and next scheduled action(s). http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Also please note that the Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries can be viewed directly at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial-report… Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
by Tim Ruiz 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

The GAC advises the Board, and I believe it is presumptive of the GNSO Council to not wait for the Board reply. I also would prefer to instead encourage the Board to just say NO and allow no further delays. The GNSO has established a policy and we should be working towards its implementation not against it. Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a concern to create further delay. I am also not too sure about this so-called "community working group" concept and what it means long term in regards to policy development (or implementation details if you like that term better). Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working > Group > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 8:54 am > To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, "Council > GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > I would like to understand > your position better Adrian > and also explain mine. > > Do you not think that the GNSO > should try to work together > with the GAC on their concerns > regarding the implementation > of new gTLD Recommendation 6? > > The GAC has an important > advisory role to the ICANN > community regarding issues of > public policy and it seems to > me that this issue involves > public policy, albeit public > policy that may vary from > government to government. The > ICANN Bylaws require the Board > to not only listen to GAC > advice on public policy > matters but also respond to it > and in recent years they have > shown that they have tried to > do that. So it seems > reasonable in my opinion that > at some point the Board will > respond to the GAC's request > to form a community working > group. They could reject the > request or they could honor it > and ask community members to > participate; if the latter > happens, the GNSO would be > asked to participate. > > My concern as Council Chair is > that this is occurring > extremely late in the game and > I have communicated that to > Heather. But the reality is > that the GAC has made a > request. I could have waited > until the Board responds, but > if recent history is any > indication, that could take > weeks or even months. Then if > they decide to form a > community WG, the chances of > further delays in the > introduction of new gTLDs > could be further delayed, a > possibility that I think the > GNSO should try to minimize. > Therefore, I decided that I > would try to take steps to > respond to the GAC request in > cooperation with the ALAC who > also had concerns on this > topic and see if we could get > the process moving as quickly > as possible to hopefully avoid > further delays or at least > minimize them. > > You did not miss anything. > There was not a vote by the > Council saying we would assist > the GAC in doing this. The > only thing that happened in > the Council happened in our > Wrap-Up meeting in Brussels > when Bill Drake raised the > issue and requested that > interested GNSO participants > should participate in the > discussions that were going on > in the GAC and ALAC. In that > meeting several people > volunteered and after that > meeting others from the GNSO > volunteered to participate as > well. There was no opposition > expressed at that time or > since then until your message > was received. > > Do you oppose members of the > GNSO community participating > in this group? > > I believe it was made clear in > our Wrap-Up meeting that any > volunteers would be > participating in their > individual capacity. Of > course, to the extent that > their SGs or Constituencies, > want them to represent their > groups' views, nothing would > prevent them from doing that. > But the intent has never been > that anyone would be > representing the GNSO or > Council as a whole. > > If the Council does not want > to work cooperatively with the > GAC and the ALAC and other > ICANN organizations on this > topic, I suppose it could > decide to do that, but I don't > think there would be any basis > for preventing individual GNSO > members from participating or > even SGs or Constituencies if > they so desired. My question > to you in that regard is > this: what message would that > send to the community as a > whole and more particularly to > the GAC and to governments in > general? > > Regarding process, the ideal > way for this to come about > would have first of all been > for the GAC to raise their > concerns much earlier in the > process. Heather says that > they did but someone I was not > aware of it until fairly > recently. The reality is that > the concerns have been raised > now. Should we ignore them > because it is so late or > should we make a best effort > to cooperate and see what can > be done in a timely manner? > > I made the latter choice. If > the timing was different, the > ideal approach would have been > for me to wait until the GNSO > received a request from the > Board and then present the > request to the Council to > decide how to respond, and > only then start to work on a > formal charter with the other > groups involved if the Council > so decided. If I took that > approach in the current > circumstances, we probably > would have had to wait at > least until after the Board > retreat the end of September > to receive a request from the > Board and maybe until after > the October Board meeting. > Then we would have had to > decide how to respond in our > October or November meetings > whether to participate. The > we would have had to work with > the other organizations to > develop and ultimately approve > the joint charter. So maybe > we could have started the work > group by the end of the year. > > One more thought: I > personally believe that it is > important for the GNSO to work > cooperatively with all ICANN > organizations that are > impacted by issues of common > concern and I also believe > that this situation provides > an opportunity for us to try > doing that with the GAC, one > of the organizations with whom > we have not had much success > in doing that in the past. > Whether we like it or not, > ICANN processes are supposed > to bottom-up and inclusive of > all stakeholders. > Unfortunately, bottom-up, > inclusive processes are slow. > At the same time, where > possible, I would like to > speed them up if we can and > that is what I tried to do in > this case because I sincerely > believe that we have a > responsibility to try and > bring closure to the new gTLD > process in an effective manner > but also in a timely manner. > > Chuck > > From: Adrian Kinderis > [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com > .au] > Sent: Thursday, August 19, > 2010 8:48 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: New gTLD > Recommendation 6 Community > Working Group > > I reject the notion of a WG at > all. IMO it is unnecessary and > will not provide any useful, > tactile benefits. > > Did I miss something here > Chuck. Was there a vote by the > Council saying we would assist > the GAC in doing this? > > Is there a mechanism by which > we could stop GNSO > participation and support? > > Adrian Kinderis > > From: > owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.ica > nn.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, > Chuck > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 > 12:32 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] New gTLD > Recommendation 6 Community > Working Group > Importance: High > > Hopefully all of you are aware > that the GAC requested a > community working group to > discuss the implementation of > the GNSO New gTLD > Recommendation 6. To > accommodate that request, the > list that the GNSO established > in follow-up to Bill Drake's > request in our Brussels > Wrap-Up session to participate > in the discussions on this > topic going on within the GAC > an ALAC will be used for the > community working group > discussions. > Considering how late this is > happening relative to the new > gTLD process, Cheryl > Langdon-Orr, chair of the > ALAC, and Heather Dryden, > Chair of the GAC, and I have > been discussing how to go > about accommodating the GAC > request in a timely manner. > To expedite discussions, we > decided to prepare an initial > draft Terms of Reference (ToR) > for discussion by those who > have volunteered to > participate in the group. The > hope is to very quickly > finalize the ToR so that > discussion of the issues may > begin and thereby have a > chance of developing > recommendations for improving > the implementation plan for > Recommendation 6 in the Draft > Application Guidebook, version > 4. > As you can see in the draft > ToR, this is not a PDP. The > GNSO Council already approved > Recommendation 6 by a > super-majority vote. There is > no intent to undo the intent > of that recommendation; to do > that would require a PDP > because it would be materially > changing an already approved > policy recommendation. > Rather, the intent is to > explore whether the > implementation process in > version 4 of the Guidebook > could be improved in a way > that addresses any of the GAC > and ALAC concerns. > As all of you know, there is > no established process for > community working groups. In > drafting the initial ToR for > discussion, we tried to > accommodate the needs of all > three organizations especially > in terms of how they operate, > which are different in certain > respects. Please note that > the group is open to all > community participants from > all SOs and ACs and for that > matter any who are not SO or > AC participants. > I believe that this could be > the first significant effort > of the GNSO and GAC working > together in a WG and I am > hopeful that it will provide > some lessons for how we can to > that better on other issues in > the future, just like the GNSO > Council discussed with the GAC > in Brussels. The GAC has an > important advisory role in > ICANN policy processes as they > relate to public policy issues > and we all know that the Board > will listen intently to the > GAC advice on the > implementation of > Recommendation 6. Therefore, > it seemed wise to try to do > that sooner rather than later > to minimize any further > delays. > I will add this topic to the > agenda for 26 August but would > really appreciate it if we can > discuss it on the list in > advance. > Thanks for your cooperation, > Chuck > > <<New gTLD Recommendation 6 > Community Discussion Group > Terms of Reference v3.docx>>

6 11

Board briefing papers available for Brussels Meeting
by Bruce Tonkin 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

Hello All, Following discussions with the Accountability and Transparency Review Team, the ICANN staff have published some of the board briefing materials that were prepared for the Board meeting in Brussels. I think many Board members - including myself - see value in making these materials routinely available. The debate is then about the criteria for when something should be redacted or not. For example, you will see that the staff have redacted their reviews on the various IDN-ccTLD delegation requests. Let me know if you see something redacted that relates to the GNSO that you feel should have been public. See: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-1-25jun10-en.pd f (102 pages, and 2.33 Mbytes) and http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-2-25jun10-en.pd f (216 pages and 2.2 Mbytes and ) The first document is the core Board papers and the second document is an annex with additional material. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 3

FW: [soac-mapo] Subscribers to the Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process mailing list (Rec6 CDG-WG) ( MAPO)
by Gomes, Chuck 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

In case any Councilors are interested, here is the latest list of subscribers to the Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process mailing list (Rec6 CDG-WG) ( MAPO). A good percentage of these participated in a teleconference call that just ended a little while ago in which rough good agreement on edits to the draft ToR seemed to be reached. Once a revised redline of the ToR is ready, I will forward it to the Council list. Chuck From: owner-soac-mapo(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:11 PM To: soac-mapo(a)icann.org Subject: [soac-mapo] Subscribers to the Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process mailing list (Rec6 CDG-WG) ( MAPO) Dear All, Please find the updated list of subscribers to the Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process mailing list (Rec6 CDG-WG) (MAPO) mailing list. ALAC Cheryl Langdon Orr - ALAC chiar Alan Greenberg - ALAC Sebastien Bachollet - ALAC Olivier Crépin-Leblond - ALAC Dave Kissoondoyal - ALAC Carlton Samuels -ALAC Evan Leibovitch - ALAC Commercial Stakeholder Group Marilyn Cade - CBUC Zahid Jamil - CBUC Jon Nevett - CBUC Philip Sheppard - CBUC Kristina Rosette - IPC Jaime Wagner - ISPCP Tony Harris - ISPCP Non Commercial Stakeholder group Avri Doria William Drake Mary Wong Milton Mueller Konstantinus Komaitis Robin Gross Registrars Stakeholder Group Stephane van Gelder - RrSG - GNSO Council vice chair Graham Chynoweth - RrSG Michele Neylon - RrSG Tony Kirsch - RrSG Registries Stakeholder Group Chuck Gomes - GNSO Council chair Edmon Chung Caroline Greer David Maher Ken Stubbs Nominating Committee Appointees Olga Cavalli - GNSO Council vice chair Terry Davis Andrei Kolesnikov Individuals Richard Tindal Anthony van Couvering Dirk Krischenowski Jothan Frakes Steve Pinkos Stuart Lawly Paul Stahura - Demand Media Dan Schindler Vanda Scartezini - ICANN Board GAC Heather Dryden - Interim GAC Chair - Canadian representative Tamara Sone - GAC Frank Marsh - GAC - New Zealand representative Bertrand de la Chapelle - GAC - French representative GAC mailing list - (The GAC can read the SOAC-MAPO list but only individual members who are subscribed to the soac -mapo list are able to to respond on the list.) Staff David Olive - VP Policy Development Jamie Hedlund - Vice President of Government Affairs - Americas ALAC Staff Massimiliano.Minisci - Manager, Regional Relations - Europe - GAC Liaison Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor Marika Konings - Policy Director Gisella Gruber-White - GNSO & At-Large Staff Support Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Please let me know who else should be added to this group. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 2

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 26 August 2010.
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

Please find the updated Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 26 August 2010. 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/gnso/ Item 1: Administrative matters (15 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest * Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in this meeting. * The main issues for this meeting are: o New voting procedures o Whois studies o GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs o Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG o Community WG regarding the GAC requested community working group on new gTLD Recommendation 6 (i.e., morality & public order) 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 - Scheduled for Approval on 26 August 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09519.html Item 2: Overview of New Procedures Related to Voting (5 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 Opportunity for SGs, Constituencies and the Council to schedule an overview session with Ken Bour 2.3 Discussion Item 3: Whois Studies (20 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 (20 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 Jeff Brueggeman David Cake (Australia) Rick Wilhelm Ken Silva SSR Alternate(s) George Asare Sakyi Whois Primary Susan Kawaguchi Kim G. Von Arx James Bladel Kathy Kleiman Whois Alternate(s) Kim G. von Arx 4.3 Summary of Geographic & Gender Diversity for SG Primary Endorsements: SSR RT Whois RT # from Africa 0 0 # from Asia/Pacific 1 0 # from Europe 0 1 # from Latin America & Caribbean 0 0 # from North America 3 3 # Male 4 2 # Female 0 2 4.4 Possible Candidates to Improve Diversity: SSR RT Whois RT Africa George Asare Sakyi None Asia/Pacific N/A None Europe None N/A Latin America & Caribbean None None North America N/A N/A Male N/A N/A # Female None N/A Note the ccNSO endorsements: SSR RT: Ondrej Filip from Europe, Rodney Joffe from North America and Simon McCalla from Europe (for two seats) Whois RT: Emily Taylor from Europe (for one seat) 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 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial-report… 5.2 Overview of the report (Margie Milam) * 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: GAC requested community working group on new gTLD Recommendation 6 (15 Minutes) 6.1 Refer to draft terms of reference (ToR): http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-new-gtld-recommendation-6-wg-tor-18aug10… 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Any suggested changes to the draft ToR 6.4 Any objections to the ToR? Item 7: Ongoing Action Items (10 Minutes) 7.1 Next Steps for Prioritization of GNSO Projects (Chuck Gomes) 7.2 Registration Abuse Policies WG Recommendations Action Plan (Marika Konings) 7.3 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. 7.4 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. 7.5 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) * Note that the ccNSO identified the following as members of this group: Jay Daley, .nz Chris Disspain, .au, ccNSO Chair Luis Diego Espinoza, .cr Ondrej Filip. .cz Hiro Hotta, .jp Hansang Lee, .kr Jörg Schweiger, .de Tan Yaling, .cn 7.6 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) 7.7 Council meeting dates for November, December & January (Glen de Saint Géry) Item 8: 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
by Tim Ruiz 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

The rights protection caused delay. And in my opinion and others, It was not an implentation detail, it resulted in significant policy. And now we are evidently stuck with another effort, MAPO. Why wouldn't other SGs (GNSO or otherwise), expect to have the same privelege? I'm concerned that another effort like this will serve as an invitation for just that. In any event, I believe the Board should first be allowed to respond before the community takes it upon themselves to presume a response. And we need to think through this community wg concept and what it means long term. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working > Group > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 9:52 am > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Tim, > > In saying "Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a > concern to create further delay." do you mean GNSO SG? If so, I do not > see how that is the case any more so than other implementation issues > that have been raised such as regarding rights protection > (recommendation 3). > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:29 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au; council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working > > Group > > > > The GAC advises the Board, and I believe it is presumptive of the GNSO > > Council to not wait for the Board reply. I also would prefer to > instead > > encourage the Board to just say NO and allow no further delays. The > > GNSO > > has established a policy and we should be working towards its > > implementation not against it. Your arguments below open the door for > > every SG with a concern to create further delay. > > > > I am also not too sure about this so-called "community working group" > > concept and what it means long term in regards to policy development > > (or > > implementation details if you like that term better). > > > > > > Tim > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working > > > Group > > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > > Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 8:54 am > > > To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, "Council > > > GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > I would like to understand > > > your position better Adrian > > > and also explain mine. > > > > > > Do you not think that the GNSO > > > should try to work together > > > with the GAC on their concerns > > > regarding the implementation > > > of new gTLD Recommendation 6? > > > > > > The GAC has an important > > > advisory role to the ICANN > > > community regarding issues of > > > public policy and it seems to > > > me that this issue involves > > > public policy, albeit public > > > policy that may vary from > > > government to government. The > > > ICANN Bylaws require the Board > > > to not only listen to GAC > > > advice on public policy > > > matters but also respond to it > > > and in recent years they have > > > shown that they have tried to > > > do that. So it seems > > > reasonable in my opinion that > > > at some point the Board will > > > respond to the GAC's request > > > to form a community working > > > group. They could reject the > > > request or they could honor it > > > and ask community members to > > > participate; if the latter > > > happens, the GNSO would be > > > asked to participate. > > > > > > My concern as Council Chair is > > > that this is occurring > > > extremely late in the game and > > > I have communicated that to > > > Heather. But the reality is > > > that the GAC has made a > > > request. I could have waited > > > until the Board responds, but > > > if recent history is any > > > indication, that could take > > > weeks or even months. Then if > > > they decide to form a > > > community WG, the chances of > > > further delays in the > > > introduction of new gTLDs > > > could be further delayed, a > > > possibility that I think the > > > GNSO should try to minimize. > > > Therefore, I decided that I > > > would try to take steps to > > > respond to the GAC request in > > > cooperation with the ALAC who > > > also had concerns on this > > > topic and see if we could get > > > the process moving as quickly > > > as possible to hopefully avoid > > > further delays or at least > > > minimize them. > > > > > > You did not miss anything. > > > There was not a vote by the > > > Council saying we would assist > > > the GAC in doing this. The > > > only thing that happened in > > > the Council happened in our > > > Wrap-Up meeting in Brussels > > > when Bill Drake raised the > > > issue and requested that > > > interested GNSO participants > > > should participate in the > > > discussions that were going on > > > in the GAC and ALAC. In that > > > meeting several people > > > volunteered and after that > > > meeting others from the GNSO > > > volunteered to participate as > > > well. There was no opposition > > > expressed at that time or > > > since then until your message > > > was received. > > > > > > Do you oppose members of the > > > GNSO community participating > > > in this group? > > > > > > I believe it was made clear in > > > our Wrap-Up meeting that any > > > volunteers would be > > > participating in their > > > individual capacity. Of > > > course, to the extent that > > > their SGs or Constituencies, > > > want them to represent their > > > groups' views, nothing would > > > prevent them from doing that. > > > But the intent has never been > > > that anyone would be > > > representing the GNSO or > > > Council as a whole. > > > > > > If the Council does not want > > > to work cooperatively with the > > > GAC and the ALAC and other > > > ICANN organizations on this > > > topic, I suppose it could > > > decide to do that, but I don't > > > think there would be any basis > > > for preventing individual GNSO > > > members from participating or > > > even SGs or Constituencies if > > > they so desired. My question > > > to you in that regard is > > > this: what message would that > > > send to the community as a > > > whole and more particularly to > > > the GAC and to governments in > > > general? > > > > > > Regarding process, the ideal > > > way for this to come about > > > would have first of all been > > > for the GAC to raise their > > > concerns much earlier in the > > > process. Heather says that > > > they did but someone I was not > > > aware of it until fairly > > > recently. The reality is that > > > the concerns have been raised > > > now. Should we ignore them > > > because it is so late or > > > should we make a best effort > > > to cooperate and see what can > > > be done in a timely manner? > > > > > > I made the latter choice. If > > > the timing was different, the > > > ideal approach would have been > > > for me to wait until the GNSO > > > received a request from the > > > Board and then present the > > > request to the Council to > > > decide how to respond, and > > > only then start to work on a > > > formal charter with the other > > > groups involved if the Council > > > so decided. If I took that > > > approach in the current > > > circumstances, we probably > > > would have had to wait at > > > least until after the Board > > > retreat the end of September > > > to receive a request from the > > > Board and maybe until after > > > the October Board meeting. > > > Then we would have had to > > > decide how to respond in our > > > October or November meetings > > > whether to participate. The > > > we would have had to work with > > > the other organizations to > > > develop and ultimately approve > > > the joint charter. So maybe > > > we could have started the work > > > group by the end of the year. > > > > > > One more thought: I > > > personally believe that it is > > > important for the GNSO to work > > > cooperatively with all ICANN > > > organizations that are > > > impacted by issues of common > > > concern and I also believe > > > that this situation provides > > > an opportunity for us to try > > > doing that with the GAC, one > > > of the organizations with whom > > > we have not had much success > > > in doing that in the past. > > > Whether we like it or not, > > > ICANN processes are supposed > > > to bottom-up and inclusive of > > > all stakeholders. > > > Unfortunately, bottom-up, > > > inclusive processes are slow. > > > At the same time, where > > > possible, I would like to > > > speed them up if we can and > > > that is what I tried to do in > > > this case because I sincerely > > > believe that we have a > > > responsibility to try and > > > bring closure to the new gTLD > > > process in an effective manner > > > but also in a timely manner. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > From: Adrian Kinderis > > > [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com > > > .au] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, > > > 2010 8:48 PM > > > To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > > > Subject: RE: New gTLD > > > Recommendation 6 Community > > > Working Group > > > > > > I reject the notion of a WG at > > > all. IMO it is unnecessary and > > > will not provide any useful, > > > tactile benefits. > > > > > > Did I miss something here > > > Chuck. Was there a vote by the > > > Council saying we would assist > > > the GAC in doing this? > > > > > > Is there a mechanism by which > > > we could stop GNSO > > > participation and support? > > > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > From: > > > owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.ica > > > nn.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, > > > Chuck > > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 > > > 12:32 AM > > > To: Council GNSO > > > Subject: [council] New gTLD > > > Recommendation 6 Community > > > Working Group > > > Importance: High > > > > > > Hopefully all of you are aware > > > that the GAC requested a > > > community working group to > > > discuss the implementation of > > > the GNSO New gTLD > > > Recommendation 6. To > > > accommodate that request, the > > > list that the GNSO established > > > in follow-up to Bill Drake's > > > request in our Brussels > > > Wrap-Up session to participate > > > in the discussions on this > > > topic going on within the GAC > > > an ALAC will be used for the > > > community working group > > > discussions. > > > Considering how late this is > > > happening relative to the new > > > gTLD process, Cheryl > > > Langdon-Orr, chair of the > > > ALAC, and Heather Dryden, > > > Chair of the GAC, and I have > > > been discussing how to go > > > about accommodating the GAC > > > request in a timely manner. > > > To expedite discussions, we > > > decided to prepare an initial > > > draft Terms of Reference (ToR) > > > for discussion by those who > > > have volunteered to > > > participate in the group. The > > > hope is to very quickly > > > finalize the ToR so that > > > discussion of the issues may > > > begin and thereby have a > > > chance of developing > > > recommendations for improving > > > the implementation plan for > > > Recommendation 6 in the Draft > > > Application Guidebook, version > > > 4. > > > As you can see in the draft > > > ToR, this is not a PDP. The > > > GNSO Council already approved > > > Recommendation 6 by a > > > super-majority vote. There is > > > no intent to undo the intent > > > of that recommendation; to do > > > that would require a PDP > > > because it would be materially > > > changing an already approved > > > policy recommendation. > > > Rather, the intent is to > > > explore whether the > > > implementation process in > > > version 4 of the Guidebook > > > could be improved in a way > > > that addresses any of the GAC > > > and ALAC concerns. > > > As all of you know, there is > > > no established process for > > > community working groups. In > > > drafting the initial ToR for > > > discussion, we tried to > > > accommodate the needs of all > > > three organizations especially > > > in terms of how they operate, > > > which are different in certain > > > respects. Please note that > > > the group is open to all > > > community participants from > > > all SOs and ACs and for that > > > matter any who are not SO or > > > AC participants. > > > I believe that this could be > > > the first significant effort > > > of the GNSO and GAC working > > > together in a WG and I am > > > hopeful that it will provide > > > some lessons for how we can to > > > that better on other issues in > > > the future, just like the GNSO > > > Council discussed with the GAC > > > in Brussels. The GAC has an > > > important advisory role in > > > ICANN policy processes as they > > > relate to public policy issues > > > and we all know that the Board > > > will listen intently to the > > > GAC advice on the > > > implementation of > > > Recommendation 6. Therefore, > > > it seemed wise to try to do > > > that sooner rather than later > > > to minimize any further > > > delays. > > > I will add this topic to the > > > agenda for 26 August but would > > > really appreciate it if we can > > > discuss it on the list in > > > advance. > > > Thanks for your cooperation, > > > Chuck > > > > > > <<New gTLD Recommendation 6 > > > Community Discussion Group > > > Terms of Reference v3.docx>>

4 3

Disclosures of Interest
by Gomes, Chuck 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

I want to call your attention to a new addition to our agenda on 26 August: 1.1 "Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest * Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in this meeting. * The main issues for this meeting are: o New voting procedures o Whois studies o GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs o Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG o Community WG regarding the GAC requested community working group on new gTLD Recommendation 6 (i.e., morality & public order)" This was added in response to Council approved GNSO Operating Procedures requirements recommended by the GCOT. Each of us should be prepared to give brief disclosures of interest on any and all of the topics on the agenda if applicable. Please refer to Section 5.4 of those procedures for more detail. The procedures can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean- 09oct09-en.pdf If you have any questions about this, please ask. My personal opinion is that the disclosures should be brief and relatively high level and that no one would be expected to disclose any proprietary information. Chuck

1 0

Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
by Caroline Greer 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

I do agree with Tim that it would be good to get a little input from the Board before we expend all this effort. I sense that a lot has happened behind the scenes here but I don't have a good handle right now on how serious an issue this is in terms of delaying new TLDs. Hopefully, more clarity will come next week when the first call takes place. ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: cgomes(a)verisign.com <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Cc: adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>; council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Aug 20 16:32:43 2010 Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group The rights protection caused delay. And in my opinion and others, It was not an implentation detail, it resulted in significant policy. And now we are evidently stuck with another effort, MAPO. Why wouldn't other SGs (GNSO or otherwise), expect to have the same privelege? I'm concerned that another effort like this will serve as an invitation for just that. In any event, I believe the Board should first be allowed to respond before the community takes it upon themselves to presume a response. And we need to think through this community wg concept and what it means long term. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working > Group > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 9:52 am > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Tim, > > In saying "Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a > concern to create further delay." do you mean GNSO SG? If so, I do not > see how that is the case any more so than other implementation issues > that have been raised such as regarding rights protection > (recommendation 3). > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:29 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au; council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working > > Group > > > > The GAC advises the Board, and I believe it is presumptive of the GNSO > > Council to not wait for the Board reply. I also would prefer to > instead > > encourage the Board to just say NO and allow no further delays. The > > GNSO > > has established a policy and we should be working towards its > > implementation not against it. Your arguments below open the door for > > every SG with a concern to create further delay. > > > > I am also not too sure about this so-called "community working group" > > concept and what it means long term in regards to policy development > > (or > > implementation details if you like that term better). > > > > > > Tim > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working > > > Group > > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > > Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 8:54 am > > > To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, "Council > > > GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > I would like to understand > > > your position better Adrian > > > and also explain mine. > > > > > > Do you not think that the GNSO > > > should try to work together > > > with the GAC on their concerns > > > regarding the implementation > > > of new gTLD Recommendation 6? > > > > > > The GAC has an important > > > advisory role to the ICANN > > > community regarding issues of > > > public policy and it seems to > > > me that this issue involves > > > public policy, albeit public > > > policy that may vary from > > > government to government. The > > > ICANN Bylaws require the Board > > > to not only listen to GAC > > > advice on public policy > > > matters but also respond to it > > > and in recent years they have > > > shown that they have tried to > > > do that. So it seems > > > reasonable in my opinion that > > > at some point the Board will > > > respond to the GAC's request > > > to form a community working > > > group. They could reject the > > > request or they could honor it > > > and ask community members to > > > participate; if the latter > > > happens, the GNSO would be > > > asked to participate. > > > > > > My concern as Council Chair is > > > that this is occurring > > > extremely late in the game and > > > I have communicated that to > > > Heather. But the reality is > > > that the GAC has made a > > > request. I could have waited > > > until the Board responds, but > > > if recent history is any > > > indication, that could take > > > weeks or even months. Then if > > > they decide to form a > > > community WG, the chances of > > > further delays in the > > > introduction of new gTLDs > > > could be further delayed, a > > > possibility that I think the > > > GNSO should try to minimize. > > > Therefore, I decided that I > > > would try to take steps to > > > respond to the GAC request in > > > cooperation with the ALAC who > > > also had concerns on this > > > topic and see if we could get > > > the process moving as quickly > > > as possible to hopefully avoid > > > further delays or at least > > > minimize them. > > > > > > You did not miss anything. > > > There was not a vote by the > > > Council saying we would assist > > > the GAC in doing this. The > > > only thing that happened in > > > the Council happened in our > > > Wrap-Up meeting in Brussels > > > when Bill Drake raised the > > > issue and requested that > > > interested GNSO participants > > > should participate in the > > > discussions that were going on > > > in the GAC and ALAC. In that > > > meeting several people > > > volunteered and after that > > > meeting others from the GNSO > > > volunteered to participate as > > > well. There was no opposition > > > expressed at that time or > > > since then until your message > > > was received. > > > > > > Do you oppose members of the > > > GNSO community participating > > > in this group? > > > > > > I believe it was made clear in > > > our Wrap-Up meeting that any > > > volunteers would be > > > participating in their > > > individual capacity. Of > > > course, to the extent that > > > their SGs or Constituencies, > > > want them to represent their > > > groups' views, nothing would > > > prevent them from doing that. > > > But the intent has never been > > > that anyone would be > > > representing the GNSO or > > > Council as a whole. > > > > > > If the Council does not want > > > to work cooperatively with the > > > GAC and the ALAC and other > > > ICANN organizations on this > > > topic, I suppose it could > > > decide to do that, but I don't > > > think there would be any basis > > > for preventing individual GNSO > > > members from participating or > > > even SGs or Constituencies if > > > they so desired. My question > > > to you in that regard is > > > this: what message would that > > > send to the community as a > > > whole and more particularly to > > > the GAC and to governments in > > > general? > > > > > > Regarding process, the ideal > > > way for this to come about > > > would have first of all been > > > for the GAC to raise their > > > concerns much earlier in the > > > process. Heather says that > > > they did but someone I was not > > > aware of it until fairly > > > recently. The reality is that > > > the concerns have been raised > > > now. Should we ignore them > > > because it is so late or > > > should we make a best effort > > > to cooperate and see what can > > > be done in a timely manner? > > > > > > I made the latter choice. If > > > the timing was different, the > > > ideal approach would have been > > > for me to wait until the GNSO > > > received a request from the > > > Board and then present the > > > request to the Council to > > > decide how to respond, and > > > only then start to work on a > > > formal charter with the other > > > groups involved if the Council > > > so decided. If I took that > > > approach in the current > > > circumstances, we probably > > > would have had to wait at > > > least until after the Board > > > retreat the end of September > > > to receive a request from the > > > Board and maybe until after > > > the October Board meeting. > > > Then we would have had to > > > decide how to respond in our > > > October or November meetings > > > whether to participate. The > > > we would have had to work with > > > the other organizations to > > > develop and ultimately approve > > > the joint charter. So maybe > > > we could have started the work > > > group by the end of the year. > > > > > > One more thought: I > > > personally believe that it is > > > important for the GNSO to work > > > cooperatively with all ICANN > > > organizations that are > > > impacted by issues of common > > > concern and I also believe > > > that this situation provides > > > an opportunity for us to try > > > doing that with the GAC, one > > > of the organizations with whom > > > we have not had much success > > > in doing that in the past. > > > Whether we like it or not, > > > ICANN processes are supposed > > > to bottom-up and inclusive of > > > all stakeholders. > > > Unfortunately, bottom-up, > > > inclusive processes are slow. > > > At the same time, where > > > possible, I would like to > > > speed them up if we can and > > > that is what I tried to do in > > > this case because I sincerely > > > believe that we have a > > > responsibility to try and > > > bring closure to the new gTLD > > > process in an effective manner > > > but also in a timely manner. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > From: Adrian Kinderis > > > [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com > > > .au] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 19, > > > 2010 8:48 PM > > > To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > > > Subject: RE: New gTLD > > > Recommendation 6 Community > > > Working Group > > > > > > I reject the notion of a WG at > > > all. IMO it is unnecessary and > > > will not provide any useful, > > > tactile benefits. > > > > > > Did I miss something here > > > Chuck. Was there a vote by the > > > Council saying we would assist > > > the GAC in doing this? > > > > > > Is there a mechanism by which > > > we could stop GNSO > > > participation and support? > > > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > From: > > > owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.ica > > > nn.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, > > > Chuck > > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 > > > 12:32 AM > > > To: Council GNSO > > > Subject: [council] New gTLD > > > Recommendation 6 Community > > > Working Group > > > Importance: High > > > > > > Hopefully all of you are aware > > > that the GAC requested a > > > community working group to > > > discuss the implementation of > > > the GNSO New gTLD > > > Recommendation 6. To > > > accommodate that request, the > > > list that the GNSO established > > > in follow-up to Bill Drake's > > > request in our Brussels > > > Wrap-Up session to participate > > > in the discussions on this > > > topic going on within the GAC > > > an ALAC will be used for the > > > community working group > > > discussions. > > > Considering how late this is > > > happening relative to the new > > > gTLD process, Cheryl > > > Langdon-Orr, chair of the > > > ALAC, and Heather Dryden, > > > Chair of the GAC, and I have > > > been discussing how to go > > > about accommodating the GAC > > > request in a timely manner. > > > To expedite discussions, we > > > decided to prepare an initial > > > draft Terms of Reference (ToR) > > > for discussion by those who > > > have volunteered to > > > participate in the group. The > > > hope is to very quickly > > > finalize the ToR so that > > > discussion of the issues may > > > begin and thereby have a > > > chance of developing > > > recommendations for improving > > > the implementation plan for > > > Recommendation 6 in the Draft > > > Application Guidebook, version > > > 4. > > > As you can see in the draft > > > ToR, this is not a PDP. The > > > GNSO Council already approved > > > Recommendation 6 by a > > > super-majority vote. There is > > > no intent to undo the intent > > > of that recommendation; to do > > > that would require a PDP > > > because it would be materially > > > changing an already approved > > > policy recommendation. > > > Rather, the intent is to > > > explore whether the > > > implementation process in > > > version 4 of the Guidebook > > > could be improved in a way > > > that addresses any of the GAC > > > and ALAC concerns. > > > As all of you know, there is > > > no established process for > > > community working groups. In > > > drafting the initial ToR for > > > discussion, we tried to > > > accommodate the needs of all > > > three organizations especially > > > in terms of how they operate, > > > which are different in certain > > > respects. Please note that > > > the group is open to all > > > community participants from > > > all SOs and ACs and for that > > > matter any who are not SO or > > > AC participants. > > > I believe that this could be > > > the first significant effort > > > of the GNSO and GAC working > > > together in a WG and I am > > > hopeful that it will provide > > > some lessons for how we can to > > > that better on other issues in > > > the future, just like the GNSO > > > Council discussed with the GAC > > > in Brussels. The GAC has an > > > important advisory role in > > > ICANN policy processes as they > > > relate to public policy issues > > > and we all know that the Board > > > will listen intently to the > > > GAC advice on the > > > implementation of > > > Recommendation 6. Therefore, > > > it seemed wise to try to do > > > that sooner rather than later > > > to minimize any further > > > delays. > > > I will add this topic to the > > > agenda for 26 August but would > > > really appreciate it if we can > > > discuss it on the list in > > > advance. > > > Thanks for your cooperation, > > > Chuck > > > > > > <<New gTLD Recommendation 6 > > > Community Discussion Group > > > Terms of Reference v3.docx>>

1 0

New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
by Gomes, Chuck 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

Hopefully all of you are aware that the GAC requested a community working group to discuss the implementation of the GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6. To accommodate that request, the list that the GNSO established in follow-up to Bill Drake's request in our Brussels Wrap-Up session to participate in the discussions on this topic going on within the GAC an ALAC will be used for the community working group discussions. Considering how late this is happening relative to the new gTLD process, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, chair of the ALAC, and Heather Dryden, Chair of the GAC, and I have been discussing how to go about accommodating the GAC request in a timely manner. To expedite discussions, we decided to prepare an initial draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for discussion by those who have volunteered to participate in the group. The hope is to very quickly finalize the ToR so that discussion of the issues may begin and thereby have a chance of developing recommendations for improving the implementation plan for Recommendation 6 in the Draft Application Guidebook, version 4. As you can see in the draft ToR, this is not a PDP. The GNSO Council already approved Recommendation 6 by a super-majority vote. There is no intent to undo the intent of that recommendation; to do that would require a PDP because it would be materially changing an already approved policy recommendation. Rather, the intent is to explore whether the implementation process in version 4 of the Guidebook could be improved in a way that addresses any of the GAC and ALAC concerns. As all of you know, there is no established process for community working groups. In drafting the initial ToR for discussion, we tried to accommodate the needs of all three organizations especially in terms of how they operate, which are different in certain respects. Please note that the group is open to all community participants from all SOs and ACs and for that matter any who are not SO or AC participants. I believe that this could be the first significant effort of the GNSO and GAC working together in a WG and I am hopeful that it will provide some lessons for how we can to that better on other issues in the future, just like the GNSO Council discussed with the GAC in Brussels. The GAC has an important advisory role in ICANN policy processes as they relate to public policy issues and we all know that the Board will listen intently to the GAC advice on the implementation of Recommendation 6. Therefore, it seemed wise to try to do that sooner rather than later to minimize any further delays. I will add this topic to the agenda for 26 August but would really appreciate it if we can discuss it on the list in advance. Thanks for your cooperation, Chuck <<New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Discussion Group Terms of Reference v3.docx>>

2 2