September 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter of the proposed new City Top-Level Domain Constituency submitted by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG. This significant step represents the fourth formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the new GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition which will extend into July. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the Board's review. I have shared a copy of the attached documents with the Board and will be sending copies to the GNSO Constituencies leaders list as well. The document is now also posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.@icann.org Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 1

RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 6, 2010

Oct. 6, 2010

This just further entrenches my concerns that that we have set off an effort to diminsh the GNSO's role within ICANN policy making (and/or increase that of the ACs beyond what was envisioned in privatizing this medium). So I do not support Cheryl's suggestion given that she clearly includes that as part of the goal for calling this effort together. We should be very concerned and cautious about shirking our responsibility as managers of policy development for the generic name space by allowing so-called "community working groups" or "cross community" initiatives to replace GNSO policy processes. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday > regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on > reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 8:07 am > To: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC > Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the GAC. > Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 7 > October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl’s message), under agenda ‘Item > 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat’ I would like to > request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond. > In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl’s message: > > > > “My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the > knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the > matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to > collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a > joint activity? It is our belief > that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering > Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be > quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the > ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more > robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built > policy processes in ICANN.” > > > > “. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board > and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and > materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants > and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the > Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and > time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community > (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the > Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our > understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be > requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing > materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board > Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for > these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the > community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a > similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting > information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go > into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the > ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.” > > > > Please forward this request to your respective SGs and > constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 > October. > > > > Thanks, Chuck > > > > > > > > From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr > [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; Frank March > Cc: alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the > recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various > WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > > > > > > > > As discussed > in our brief chat yesterday, the ALAC at its meeting on the > 28th discussed several matters and concerns to our > community and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG > activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of > the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim, > Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) > leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to > the aforementioned WG's which as you know range from the > 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI) through the Joint > Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross Community WG > for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC and > ALAC; the ALAC had formally appointed a Liaison from us as a joint > CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under > role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft > GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of GNSO > Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc ) and both these Liaisons > addressed serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the > Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl > and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering > organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's > reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report from > the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and > Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either > by the ALAC or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that > might occur (this will be followed though on either jointly with > other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28 > Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en > > > > > > > > > > > > I am writing to you with this information and the > following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider what next steps > they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends > to do. As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint > JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th > of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be > of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS specific > matter as well as whatever might be raised regarding Rec6CWG. > > > > > > > > > > > > On behalf of the At-Large Community involved > and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and > deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat where they were > considering the new > gTLD program Application Guidelines etc., ALAC will > be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some > information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG > participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the > resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some > information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations > from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with > Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can > be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those > resolutions, we will also be requesting access to > and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff > briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the > previously announced intentions and guidelines for these > publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the > community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a > similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting > information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go > into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the > ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is concern in our community that the briefings and > staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of > information and the specifics of the various recommendations in > these reports, nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated > to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or otherwise > these fears. > > > > > > > > > > > > My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge > of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters > we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and > proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? > It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly > operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this > would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to > do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build > better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up > consensus built policy processes in ICANN. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it > to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and > Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have > an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO > Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any > discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note also > that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value > any individual or partial/subset interactions and interventions > from your Members and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to > join us in cross community collaboration on this... > > > > > > > > > > > > I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this > proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most > suitable and effective on this issue in the near future. Please note that > by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC) > where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback, > guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership > and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I believe work more effectively and successfully in > concert and collaboration rather than by divided effort on this > and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) > > > > Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010 > > > > > > > > >

4 3

FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the GAC. Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 7 October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl's message), under agenda 'Item 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat' I would like to request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond. In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl's message: "My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN." ". . . ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make." Please forward this request to your respective SGs and constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 October. Thanks, Chuck From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; Frank March Cc: alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... As discussed in our brief chat yesterday, the ALAC at its meeting on the 28th discussed several matters and concerns to our community and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim, Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm> The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to the aforementioned WG's which as you know range from the 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI) through the Joint Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross Community WG for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC and ALAC; the ALAC had formally appointed a Liaison from us as a joint CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of <http://goog_673367091/> GNSO Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc <https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fst.icann.org%2Fdata%2F workspaces%2Ficann-ppsc%2Fattachments%2Fworking_group_team%3A20100520152 255-0-26262%2Foriginal%2FGNSO%252520Working%252520Group%252520Guidelines %252520-%252520clean%252520-%252520updated%25252020%252520May%2525202010 .doc> ) and both these Liaisons addressed serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report from the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either by the ALAC or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that might occur (this will be followed though on either jointly with other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28 Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en I am writing to you with this information and the following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider what next steps they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends to do. As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS specific matter as well as whatever might be raised regarding Rec6CWG. On behalf of the At-Large Community involved and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat where they were considering the new gTLD program Application Guidelines etc., ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make. There is concern in our community that the briefings and staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of information and the specifics of the various recommendations in these reports, nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or otherwise these fears. My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN. Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note also that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value any individual or partial/subset interactions and interventions from your Members and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to join us in cross community collaboration on this... I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most suitable and effective on this issue in the near future. Please note that by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC) where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback, guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I believe work more effectively and successfully in concert and collaboration rather than by divided effort on this and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as well. Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010

2 1

RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

I am accepting one of Adrian's suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change it as highlighted in the attached file. Other suggested amendments are welcome. Note also that a second is needed. Chuck <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>> _____________________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Motion re. VI WG << File: Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc >> In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second. Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October. I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off. Chuck

7 11

FW: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

Please note the following communication from the co-chairs of the VI PDP WG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Roberto Gaetano Subject: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration To: GNSO Council From: Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor (VI working-group co-chairs) Subject: Notice with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration ____ In response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 resolution by the ICANN Board, we would like to notify the GNSO Council that to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration. We plan to incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting.

4 4

GNSO Council agenda Thursday, 7 October 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

Please notify your constituencies and stakeholder groups that the GNSO Council meeting will be audio cast. GNSO Council meeting audiocast link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 7 October 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-07oct10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_7_october_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 15:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT; 11:00 EST; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; 17:00 CET; 19:00 Moscow, 20:00 Karachi, 23:00 Hong Kong, Friday, 8 October 00:00 Tokyo, 01:00 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 (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. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: "Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue." * The main issues for this meeting are: New gTLDs * Recommendation 6 Community WG Report to the Board * Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support * GNSO Comments regarding both of the above * GNSO Prioritization 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: * 8 September 2010 meeting<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09642.html> - Scheduled for Approval on 30 September 2010. Item 2: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat (15 Minutes) 2.1 Refer to Board Resolutions<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm>: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm 2.2 Comments from Staff (Kurt Pritz) * Questions? 2.3 Action items * Response regarding VI PDP WG due 8 October o Refer to letter<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09677.html> from VI PDP WG: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09677.html o Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?7_october_motions o Discussion o Vote (Note that absentee voting is not allowed.) * Request from the ALAC o Refer to message <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/langdon-orr-board-resolutions-28sep10-…> from Cheryl Langdon-Orr at http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/langdon-orr-board-resolutions-28sep10-… o How should Chuck respond? o What actions being taken by the At-Large are ones that the GNSO would like to jointly support? * Other? Item 3: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community WG (25 minutes) 3.1 Summary of Report (Margie Milam) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 GNSO Comments * Summary of comments on Council list to date (Margie Milam) * Additional comments * Should we submit comments from the Council or from individual SGs/Constituencies? * Next steps? o Possible Council action on 28 October (if needed)? 3.4 Special thanks to the Rec6 CWG and to Margie & Marika for their incredible support. Item 4: Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) WG (15 minutes) 4.1 Refer to the following: * Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support http://gnso.icann.org/issues/jas/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recommend… <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/jas/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recommend…> * New gTLD Applicant Support Draft Recommendations Summary presentation<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom…> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom… 4.2 Brief Summary of Report<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom…> (Rafik Dammak) 4.3 Discussion 4.4 GNSO Comments * Should we submit comments from the Council or from individual SGs/Constituencies? * Next steps? o Possible Council action on 28 October (if needed)? 4.4 Special thanks to the JAS WG members Item 5: GNSO Project Prioritization (20 minutes) 5.1 Refer to posted project ratings<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom…>: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-r… 5.2 Key points made in the 15 July Council meeting (from meeting minutes): * ". . . not a useful exercise, not much was learnt, should not proceed further with the prioritization exercise." * ". . . spending more time on the exercise will not accomplish useful results." * "It was a difficult exercise, policy matters were not prioritized and the core issue, management of the workload, still has not been resolved." * "The exercise was intended as a first step and not intended to solve the workload management; other steps are needed. The exercise contributed an important degree of common awareness and dissent to the group." * "The prioritization process could be improved with further input from the Councilors and stakeholder groups." * "The exercise is important and informative from a staff perspective and the Council needs to look at a two-step process going forward: step one - form a small team to improve the process used to date drawing on input received; step two - develop a process to manage the workload with input from staff of the resources being used to support each of the working groups, which will reflect both staff and community efforts." * "Support was expressed for continuing the prioritization work, but linking it to the overall ICANN Staff and Community workload and to the Budget process." * "The question of available resources should be looked at in context. The Vertical Integration working group as an example of one that would not normally have commenced with all the work before Council, yet it did and the community resources were available." * "Some believe that work should be prioritized but the methodology chosen is not the most appropriate or efficient." 5.3 Next Steps * Staff Utilization Analysis (Liz Gasster) Refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-resource-management-polic… * Results of Adobe Connect Poll regarding possible next steps: o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization - 5 votes (33%) o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload in the near term - 2 votes (13%) o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new process - 0 votes (0%) o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the process - 1 vote (7%) o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4) - 7 votes (47%) * Discussion? * Action Items Item 6: Selections for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (10 minutes) 6.1 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 6.2 Selections by Rod Beckstrom & Heather Dryden CSG NCSG RrSG RySG SSR Primary Jeff Brueggeman David Cake (Australia) Ken Silva Whois Primary Susan Kawaguchi Kim G. Von Arx James Bladel Kathy Kleiman (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep10-en.htm) 6.3 Discussion? Item 7: Suggested Improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings (10 minutes) 7.1 Proposed recommendations (Wendy Seltzer) 7 .2 Discussion Item 8: Status of Continued Action Items (10 Minutes) 8.1 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) 8.2 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) * Volunteers to date: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC) * Feedback from Steering Committees (Rob Hoggarth) * Question raised regarding GNSO Operating Procedures: Should the concerns about the newly approved disclosure of interest requirements be dealt with by the OSC & GCOT or by the standing committee? Next Steps? Charter? 8.3 High Level Progress of House/Stakeholder Group Elections * Councilors * Chair & Vice Chair Nominations * NCA Assignments 8.4 Whois Studies * Status report for Whois Studies 3 & 4 (Liz Gasster) * Refer to redline version of Proxy/Privacy Reveal study (Study 4) RFP at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep10-en.htm Item 9: Other Business (5 minutes) 9.1 Status update on efforts to hire a new Director of Compliance and additional Compliance personnel necessary to bring current staff levels back up to 100% (David Olive) 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) 15:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 (Friday) ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council minutes 8 September 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

Dear Councillors, The GNSO Council minutes of 8 September were automatically approved on 30 September 2010 and have been posted on the website: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-08sep10-en.htm 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

Motion re. VI WG
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

<<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc>> In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second. Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October. I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off. Chuck

3 5

GNSO Council Project/Resource Management and GNSO Policy Staff Utilization
by David Olive Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members: Attached is a report on staff resource utilization that we prepared to assist the GNSO Council in the Work Prioritization “management” effort. We want the data to be viewed constructively as one input to the prioritization process, while being sensitive to the many hours also contributed by community volunteers. We hope this report will be useful in your discussion on the GNSO Project Prioritization at the 7 October Council meeting. Best regards, David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

2 1

Releasing RFP on a WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Relay and Reveal study today and update on Abuse study analysis
by Liz Gasster Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

All, Later today we will be posting the attached Request For Proposal (RFP) terms of reference and cover letter inviting independent researchers to provide costs and feasibility to conduct a study on WHOIS that will analyze a sample of relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy/Proxy-registered domain names to document how they are processed and identify factors that may promote or impede timely communication and resolution. The study RFP will be announced on ICANN's home page and updated information will also be available here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/. The deadline for submissions is 30 November 2010. The RFP Terms of Reference and cover letter are also attached for your reference. While I had also hoped to complete the staff analysis on the WHOIS Proxy and Privacy "Abuse" study today, additional information was needed from both potential vendors which has delayed completion of our work. I expect to complete our analysis in the next week or so. Thanks, Liz

2 1