September 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Proxy Voting Procedures
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 25, 2010

Sept. 25, 2010

Here is my response to Stéphane's question regarding the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) requirements regarding proxy voting. Here is the applicable excerpt from the GOP, Section 4.5.3.b, Remedies: "Proxy Voting The second method to be considered in avoiding the consequences of an abstention is the use of proxy voting, where the vote of an abstaining Councilor is transferred to another GNSO Councilor. i. For abstentions declared by Councilors not appointed by the Nominating Committee and where voting direction is not a viable remedy, the appointing organization may transfer the vote of the abstaining Councilor to: (1) the House Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA), (2) another of its Constituency Councilors (where applicable), or (3) another Councilor within the Stakeholder Group. The appointing organization must be able to establish an affirmative or negative voting position, subject to provisions contained in its Charter or Bylaws, on the applicable measure/motion for which one of its Councilors has declared an intention to abstain. The Councilor to whom the vote is transferred shall exercise a vote in line with the appointing organization's stated position. ii. If an abstention is declared by a House NCA, once formal notification has occurred pursuant to the procedures in Paragraph 4.5.4-a, a proxy is automatically transferred to the GNSO Council's unaffiliated NCA (hereinafter Council NCA) and any vote cast will be counted within the House to which the abstaining NCA is assigned. The Council NCA may exercise only one proxy at a time; therefore, the first abstention remedy properly transferred to the Council NCA, including all measures/motions specified, takes precedence. It should be noted that, because NCAs do not have an appointing organization, as defined in these procedures (see Section 1.3.1), to provide specific voting direction, the Council NCA may exercise his/her best judgment, including abstaining, on the matter at issue. If the Council NCA abstains or does not cast a vote for any other reason, no further remedies are available and the automatic proxy will be nullified. The original House NCA will be recorded in the minutes as having abstained from the vote." If I interpret the above correctly, for proxies to have been allowed in today's meeting the following would have need to have happened in advance: The appointing organization of the Councilor who has to abstain (because of planned absence or other reasons) "must be able to establish an affirmative or negative voting position" and that would have needed to have sent to Secretary. I believe Staff has prepared a template to facilitate this. That did not happen in any of the cases where proxies were requested today. I cc'd Rob and Ken so that they can correct me if my interpretation is in error. Chuck

3 5

Motion and Document Deadline - Wednesday, 29 September 2010 for Council meeting on 7 October 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2010

Sept. 23, 2010

Dear Councillors, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on 7 October 2010 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 29 September 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Disclosure of Interest Statements for GNSO Council Meeting 7 October 2010.
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2010

Sept. 23, 2010

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the next Council meeting on Thursday, 7 October at 15:00 UTC, may I remind you that Disclosures of Interest should be written statements. 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 If you have any disclosures of interest to make would you please submit these to the Council list with a copy to gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> by Tuesday, 5 October 2010. 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

Update on WHOIS studies and "final" draft P/P reveal study RFP TOR for your quick review
by Liz Gasster Sept. 22, 2010

Sept. 22, 2010

All, Following is a short update on the WHOIS studies I am working on, including a short turn-around request for review of the revised Terms of Reference for a Privacy/Proxy Reveal Study. 1. WHOIS Misuse - The GNSO Council approved resolution to proceed with this study at its last meeting. Staff is working with the top bidder to revise their proposal to address the areas that we noted in our 23 March memo to the Council required more clarity and to address the additional items included by the Council in the 8 September resolution. We will then finalize a contract and initiate the study. Target end of October to finalize contract. 2. WHOIS Abuse - The top two RFP responders have provided additional information as requested and we hope to have an analysis prepared by the end of September. 3. WHOIS Reveal -- A revised, hopefully final draft of the RFP Terms of Reference is attached for your review. We received a lot of helpful input from Council members and SG/C "delegates" so this language is substantially revised - so much so that I decided not to send a redline as it was essentially illegible. I want to acknowledge and thank Wendy Seltzer, Statton Hammock, Michele Neylon, Kathy Kleiman, Steve Del Bianco, Lee Eulgen and Adam Scoville for their guidance and insights. At the recommendation of the group, the study has been recast as an exploratory study of a sample of relay and reveal requests and does not include a testable hypothesis per se. The thought behind this essentially is to learn enough about an area that is not well enough documented or understood so that more concrete testable hypotheses might then be formulated and then studied if need be, based on the data collected by this effort. Other edits adjusted certain language regarding the specific community proposals to be more neutral and to clarify outputs. We would like to post the Proxy/Privacy Reveal study RFP as soon as possible, so please review and give me any final edits by Monday 27 September at 15:00 UTC. I'm happy to answer questions or address concerns. Thanks! Liz

1 0

ICANN Webinar 27 September 2010: Meetings For the Next Decade Survey Results and Next Steps
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 22, 2010

Sept. 22, 2010

Forwarded from David A. Olive - Vice President, Policy Development Support Meetings For the Next Decade Survey Results and Next Steps As you were one of the respondents to the Meetings for the Next Decade Big Pulse survey (21 May-30 July 2010), we would like to encourage you to join ICANN's Participation and Engagement staff in this webinar about the Public Participation Board Committee's Meetings For the Next Decade ongoing work. ICANN Staff will provide two webinar briefing sessions on Monday, 27 September 2010 at 15.00 and 24.00 UTC. Attendees will hear an overview of the Public Participation Committee's 2010 planned work, learn about the results of the Big Pulse survey and the key issues derived from that, and engage with staff and members of the committee on the next stage of the program, which is to better understand the community's needs in regard to infrastructure and content for the ICANN International Public meetings in the future. The 30-minute presentation will be hosted twice and recorded for later download to make the information accessible to community members in different time zones. Each webinar session will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Each session will be conducted in English only. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions during the sessions via a telephonic audio link and by using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect, as well as participate in a poll during and immediately following the presentation. If you are unable to participate in either of the two live sessions, the slides and an MP3 file will be made available shortly after the sessions. In order to participate, please submit your RSVP/Registration to http://www.icann.org/en/learning/webinars.htm. You will receive log-in and dial-in details and an e-mail reminder before the event. Yours sincerely, David Olive Vice President of Policy Development Also on behalf of ICANN Participation and Engagement Staff ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Report on Implementation of GNSO New GTLD Recommendation #6 - 21 September 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 22, 2010

Sept. 22, 2010

Dear All, Please find the link to the Report on Implementation of GNSO New GTLD Recommendation #6 - 21 September 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/report-rec6-cwg-21sep10-en.pdf posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ under New gTLDs Under the sub -heading: Cross Community WG discussing Recommendation 6 of the new gTLD process And also posted on the home page http://gnso.icann.org/index.html Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fw: Report on Implementation of GNSO New GTLD Recommendation #6
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 21, 2010

Sept. 21, 2010

Here's the Rec6 CWG report that was sent to the Board and the new gTLD implementation team today. Please note that GNSO comments are requested so please forward it to your respective groups for review and discussion in our 7 Oct meeting. Thanks, Chuck Chuck From: David Olive [mailto:david.olive@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 06:29 PM To: Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>; Frank.March(a)med.govt.nz <Frank.March(a)med.govt.nz>; Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)icann.org> Subject: Report on Implementation of GNSO New GTLD Recommendation #6 Dear ICANN Secretary: This Board Communication is sent at the request of Chuck Gomes, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Heather Dryden, on behalf of the Recommendation 6 Community Working Group (Rec 6 CWG). This Report published on 21 September 2010 from the New gTLD Recommendation #6 Cross-Community Working Group (“Rec6 CWG”) addresses implementation of the GNSO Council’s New gTLD Recommendation # 6 (Rec6). This Report describes recommendations for improving the proposed implementation plan for Rec6 as described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook-v4. There is consensus among the members of the Rec6 CWG that the proposed implementation model for Rec6 is flawed in certain respects and can be improved. The Rec6 CWG believes that the recommendations described in this Report, as summarized in Section 3 of this Report, and described in detail in Annex 3, would improve the implementation of Rec6. We kindly request that this Report be included in the materials for the Board’s consideration at the retreat. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 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

1 0

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 7 October 2010.
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 21, 2010

Sept. 21, 2010

Dear All, Please find the proposed GNSO Council Agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 7 October at 15:00 UTC below and also posted at: 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 proecedures: "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 (insert link) - Scheduled for Approval on 30 September 2010. Item 2: Suggested Improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings (10 minutes) 2.1 Proposed recommendations (Wendy Seltzer) 2 .2 Discussion 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 Brief Summary of Report (Rafik Dammak) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 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 Prioritization (20 minutes) 5.1 Refer to posted project ratings: 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 targeted for 26 August meeting (Liz Gasster) * 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) Rick Wilhelm Ken Silva Whois Primary Susan Kawaguchi Kim G. Von Arx James Bladel Kathy Kleiman (Insert link to announcement) 6.3 Discussion? Item 7: Report from Board Retreat? (10 Minutes) 7.1 Refer to (insert link if any) 7.2 Action items? 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 (Liz Gasster) * 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) Item 9: 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) 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) 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

Revised Draft GNSO Council mibutes 8 September 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 21, 2010

Sept. 21, 2010

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 8 September 2010. The following sentence has been added as a clarification to the voting results in: Item 2: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS and Whois Policies Review Teams "Stéphane Van Gelder also stated that Tim Ruiz, who warned he would be unable to attend the complete meeting, had asked to have him named as his proxy. Chuck Gomes ruled against this as well." Please let me know if you would like any other changes made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#sep on Thursday, 30 September 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Update from the Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support.
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 18, 2010

Sept. 18, 2010

-----Original Message----- Forwarded From: Avri Doria To: The ICANN Board and the Chartering Organizations: ALAC and the GNSO Council From: Co-chairs of the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support The Working Group has made a great deal of progress since the Brussels meeting and is well along in the process of finding the consensus point on the recommendations. The group has put a great deal of time into analyzing the community comments and into reviewing the initial recommendations as defined in the first snapshot in the light of those comments. While we near the end of this process, we have not yet completed the work. The enclosed document is an excerpt from the final output document of the WG covering the WG recommendations. For the most part, the items in this document have consensus. In the few cases where there is still an ongoing debate, the options are listed either in [bracketed text1, bracketed text2], or in one case in an expanded section listing 2 options. We hope that this second snapshot will be useful to the ICANN Board in their discussions on the New gTLD Program. We would appreciate any feedback either the ICANN Board or the chartering organizations might have on our discussions. It has been a goal of this group to make sure we were able to present recommendations in time for the upcoming round of new gTLD applications. The participants in this group believe that being able to provide assistance now and not at some possible future round is critical for various reasons. These reasons include: - Board resolution 2010.03.12.46-47 was quite clear on the need to ensure that the current New gTLD Program should be inclusive. Much of the ICANN community took hope from this decision and not to deliver on this first round would disappoint the global community greatly. - With every round, the competitive disadvantage for the new gTLDs increases. For ICANN to cause further disadvantage to those who already are at a disadvantage due to its pricing considerations could be seen as an abrogation of its responsibly to serve the global public interest and foster competition for all. - The pent up demand for new gTLDs, especially IDN gTLD, is so great that there is an expectation for many applications. There is a concern that without some sort of assistance program, all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be grabbed by wealthy investors, leaving little opportunity, especially in developing regions, for local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs. - While there is every plan for a second round, and most of us believe that such a round will occur, its timetable is at best uncertain. The round of 2001 was supposed to be followed by new rounds, and though it now appears that it will be, it took a decade for that to happen. Since it is impossible to give guarantees of when there might be a future round, making those who cannot afford the current elevated ICANN prices wait for an uncertain future is not seen as equitable treatment. In the final document, we will not only present the recommendations of the WG, but will explain those recommendations and will list the activities that we are recommending as follow on work. Finally, we apologize for the delay in delivering this by the document deadline and hope that you will receive and consider this brief document nonetheless. Thank you Avri Doria and Evan Leibovitch Co-chairs, Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support --- To the ICANN Secretary, please pass this cover letter along with the enclosed document to the entire ICANN Board. To the GNSO Secretary, please pass this cover letter along with the enclosed document to the entire GNSO Council. To the ALAC Secretariat, please pass this cover letter, along with the enclosed document to the entire ALAC. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1