January 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

San Fancisco meeting schedule
by Olga Cavalli Jan. 26, 2011

Jan. 26, 2011

Dear Council members, Glen and I are working in organizing the GNSO Agenda for San Francisco. If there are any topics or meetings that you need us to consider or to book space for please let us know. (working groups, house meetings, etc) We are also working on finding a date and time for meeting Patrick Falstrom new chair of SSAC. Best regards and thanks. Olga

2 1

Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings
by Adrian Kinderis Jan. 25, 2011

Jan. 25, 2011

Stephane, I am not sure of the correct forum to bring this up however I do so here... I have been contacted by a number of my constituents regarding the severe raising of pricing of the sponsorship packages for the upcoming San Francisco meeting. In most cases prices within the different levels of sponsorship packages have doubled and it seem that ICANN is trying to secure a few sponsors at $500,000. This seems, to me at least, just plain crazy! My organization has sponsored on a number of occasions and are potentially again this time. However I am concerned of these changes and the impact they may have. The reason I bring it up in this forum is because I wonder if this is something the Council could take a position of. We all benefit from a healthy participation of sponsors. Without them the meetings would not exist. However, I believe ICANN is being just plain greedy and this could potentially harm future meetings. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards, Adrian Kinderis

4 8

Thanks to Olga and Wolf, congrats to Mary
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 25, 2011

Jan. 25, 2011

Councillors, I am informed that the NCPH has elected Mary Wong as its Vice Chair for this year. Congratulations to Mary and welcome to the leadership team. We all look forward to working with you. I would also like to thank Olga for her outstanding service to the GNSO as Vice Chair this past year, and for having agreed to stay on a little bit extra. Thanks to Wolf for having volunteered for the role of Vice Chair. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

3 2

ccNSO update - Fourth ccNSO Del, Redel, Retirement Progress Report
by Olga Cavalli Jan. 25, 2011

Jan. 25, 2011

Hi, The Delegation, Re-delegation and Retirement of ccTLD Working Group (DRD WG) has published its Fourth Progress Report<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/fourth-drdwg-progress-report-01dec10-e…>. The new version is an update to the Third Progress Report and includes an overview of the issues and the recommendations of the DRD Working Group from the full report on the Re-delegation of ccTLDs, where the Incumbent operator does not consent. The full report was posted 21 December 2010. Fourth progress report can be found here: http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24jan11-en.htm Best regards, Olga

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-chairs] GNSO meeting with new SSAC chair in March meeting?
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 25, 2011

Jan. 25, 2011

Thanks Liz, Am replying to the full Council list so that everyone is aware of the change at SSAC. I think meeting with Patrik is an excellent idea. Glen, Olga, can this be worked into our SF agenda? Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> > Date : 25 janvier 2011 17:46:40 HNEC > À : > Objet : [gnso-chairs] GNSO meeting with new SSAC chair in March meeting? > > All, > > As you may be aware, Steve Crocker is stepping down as SSAC Chair, and Patrik Faltstrom will be assuming this role. The Council may be interested in meeting Patrick and learning about what changes the community might expect as the committee moves forward. Patrik has graciously agreed to visit with each SO/AC during the upcoming SV meeting, schedules permitting. He would also be glad to attend any Stakeholder Group or Constituency meetings if that would be of interest. > > Please let me know if the GNSO Council is interested, and, if so, perhaps Olga and Glen might propose a workable time. Also Patrik did ask what style of meeting (discussion, presentation, intro & Q&A) you'd prefer, to which I might suggest introductory comments followed by short Q and A? > > Thanks, Liz

1 0

ccNSO Update - ccNSO new member - 109
by Olga Cavalli Jan. 25, 2011

Jan. 25, 2011

Hi, Azerbaijan (.az) is now a member of the ccNSO, 109. Best regards Olga

2 1

RE: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings
by carlos dionisio aguirre Jan. 25, 2011

Jan. 25, 2011

Dear Kristina: The benefit for participate like sponsor must be measured by who want to be sponsor, not by ICANN.ICANN (or your financial manager) must measure and evaluate, the absense of sponsors. The situation is totally different and contrary. The rules of Economy are mandatories on that. Each one play their game.On the other side and in the instance to somebody think, that ICANN must to have registration fees: Im totally against on that, because:ICANN have a underlying principles, like participation and bottom up process, appart to be a" non profit organization". Where do you include this, when you decide to make that the people pay for participate?Yes, I know (perhaps the response is) the people can participate remotely. But you & me know that is not the same.ICANN model is good for me, if you make business with ICANN and have incomes for this businesses, and you want to have publicity within the meetings, so, you must pay for that. Im not completely sure, but Is not mandatory to be sponsor. Am I wrong? If you, like a Internet Industry company, want to make your product or service be visible, have no much more options. publicity, and pay to be sponsor. How Much ? The company decide if it appropriate or not. That means: free market. ICANN fix the price to be sponsor, and the candidate to be sponsor must decide if will be or not. After that, there are many other considerations to do, but I think this is the essential. From my humble point of view . Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org From: krosette(a)cov.com To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:50:34 -0500 Subject: RE: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings It seems to me that if we're going to be talking about sponsorship, we should also be talking about whether it's time for ICANN to start charging a registration fee to attend the meetings. I was dumbstruck when I attended my first ICANN meeting and found out that there's no charge to attend. Every other meeting I attend has a registration fee and some are quite high ($750+). Let me be clear: I'm NOT suggesting that ICANN should start charging a registration fee so that the meetings are revenue generators. I do think, though, that it's time to examine whether the costs of the meetings are high enough so that it makes sense to charge some fee that can be used to offset those costs. In addition, the more ICANN can recover through registration fees, the less money it needs from sponsors. As to the sponsorship fee, the prices and "benefits" are at the point where there's an optics issue, IMHO. K From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:40 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings I see no reason why this could not be discussed here. Is there anyone from Staff that can address Adrian's questions? As far as the Council taking a position on this, what do others think? Is there a desire to work on drafting a letter on this topic? Stéphane Le 23 janv. 2011 à 09:49, Adrian Kinderis a écrit : Stephane, I am not sure of the correct forum to bring this up however I do so here… I have been contacted by a number of my constituents regarding the severe raising of pricing of the sponsorship packages for the upcoming San Francisco meeting. In most cases prices within the different levels of sponsorship packages have doubled and it seem that ICANN is trying to secure a few sponsors at $500,000. This seems, to me at least, just plain crazy! My organization has sponsored on a number of occasions and are potentially again this time. However I am concerned of these changes and the impact they may have. The reason I bring it up in this forum is because I wonder if this is something the Council could take a position of. We all benefit from a healthy participation of sponsors. Without them the meetings would not exist. However, I believe ICANN is being just plain greedy and this could potentially harm future meetings. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards, Adrian Kinderis

3 2

ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 23, 2011

Jan. 23, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs 21 January 2011 During the recent ICANN meeting in Cartagena, the ICANN Board of Directors and Governmental Advisory Committee agreed to meet at some time prior to the upcoming Silicon Valley/San Francisco meeting in order to devote significant time in the interest of resolving the outstanding issues the GAC has identified with the new gTLD process. Planning for that meeting has occurred and the Board and the GAC have agreed to meet on 28 February and 1 March 2011, in Brussels, at the Square Brussels Meeting Centre, Mont des Arts - Kunstberg, Brussels. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1. Identify the specific differences between Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") advice and the current implementation of the GNSO New gTLD Policy recommendations embodied in the Applicant Guidebook. 2. Through discussion among Board and GAC members, either: 1. arrive at an agreed upon resolution of those differences, or 2. for those issues not resolved, identify what differences remain. This meeting is not intended to address the requirements/steps outlined in the Bylaws mandated Board-GAC consultation process. The meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the discussion, whether in person or remotely. It will be possible for interested parties to attend and observe proceedings. Remote participation facilities will also be made available. Papers to inform the discussions will be published prior to the meeting. Details of the agenda and logistics will be made available closer to the meeting. Background ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) plays a key role within ICANN, particularly with regard to providing advice to the Board on public policy issues. The GAC has been actively involved in the discussions on the introduction of new gTLDs and has regularly provided advice to the ICANN Board on a number of issues, which the Board has sought to address. The most recent GAC communiqué [PDF, 45 KB] identified a number of issues associated with the introduction of new gTLDs that the GAC considers outstanding, or unresolved to the GAC's satisfaction. The new gTLD program has its origins in carefully deliberated policy development work by the ICANN community. In October 2007, following more than 18 months of community discussions, the GNSO formally completed its policy development work on new gTLDS and approved a set of 19 policy recommendations. In June 2008, ICANN's Board of Directors adopted the policy recommendations and directed staff to commence work on an implementation plan. The first version of the Applicant Guidebook was posted for public comment on 1 October 2008, and since that time a further four versions have followed with the most recent, the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook published on 10 November 2010. Each version has been revised as a result of comments received via the respective public comment fora. The ICANN meeting in Cartagena provided the platform for discussion of the latest version, and provided an opportunity for the Board to hear first hand, the community's views. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 23, 2011

Jan. 23, 2011

I can't support Wolf's approach but would support the following version: - Communicate to ICANN that the council would like to see the agenda, to know what arrangements have been made to transcribe and/or record the meeting, and know what the additional cost is to ICANN. - Based on Staff response to the above, the Council can make an informed decision as to whether to formally approve the Chair attending. - If Stephane decides to attend without that, he is not attending in his capacity as Chair, only because of it. - Either way, the Council cannot be committed to anything during the meeting without Council approval, and Stephane cannot commit to anything in his capacity as Chair without Council approval. - Either way, Stephane should provide a comprehensive report to the GNSO weekend session. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF From: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> Date: Thu, January 20, 2011 11:15 am To: Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello again, and sorry if my last email wasn't clear. I'd like to clarify that I don't oppose the idea of such a meeting, but would like more information as to its purpose and agenda (given that it is 2 days). As such, I support Wolf's approach. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>To:"<KnobenW(a)telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>CC:<council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 1/20/2011 9:40 AMSubject: Re: AW: AW: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF Thanks for those excellent suggestions Wolf. What do others think about this approach, which I would support as it sends a more gentle signal than simply "we're not going to attend"? > - communicate to ICANN that the council has some reservations regarding this meeting > - if the meeting takes place you should attend > - provide a comprehensive report to the GNSO weekend session Stéphane As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu

2 1

JAS
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 22, 2011

Jan. 22, 2011

Councillors, Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair. One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly. As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board. Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums". Thanks, Stéphane

6 6