January 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] JAS
by Tim Ruiz 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

We've been through this already, rather painfully, and spent a lot of time on it. We ended up at what the majority of the Council believes to be a good compromise. I don't see why reopening this discussion would yield any different result. A single WG operating under two different charters is unworkable. Personally, I think it looks like there are two options left, 1) since this is a GNSO issue, we should form a drafting team under our own version of the charter. It would address the issues and present a proposal back to the Council to approve and forward to the Board, or 2) we simply dissolve the CWG and explain the situation to the Board. In any event, I think it critical that we DO NOT get involved in any more of these until we work out appropriate rules, procedures, guidelines, whatever these types of groups. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] JAS From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 8:29 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Councillors, FYI, ALAC Chair Olivier Crépin Leblond has reached out to me to discuss the JAS situation. Unofficially, because this has not been ratified by ALAC yet, it is looking unlikely that they will accept our modified charter. Some within ALAC are calling for either the version of the charter that was approved by ALAC to be maintained, or for the JAS group to work under 2 separate charters. The second option seems surreal to me, and what I communicated to Olivier is that I see two ways forward: 1. ALAC and the GNSO sit down together and manage to find common ground on a mutually acceptable charter. This does present some complexities for us though, as any changes to the charter that we approved during our last teleconference meeting would no doubt need a new motion. 2. We both refer the problem to ICANN's general Counsel. Because we are dealing with a cross community group and these do not really have any clearly defined status in ICANN at the moment, this problem is one that we may not feel confident to tackle alone, hence my second proposal. I will keep the Council informed of any further development on this front. Also, please note that an update from ALAC on the JAS situation is included in the agenda I have drafter for our next meeting. The Council leaders are currently working on this draft, which will then be submitted to the Council, as usual. Thanks, Stéphane

5 5

RE: [council] JAS
by carlos dionisio aguirre 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

I particularly believe: On a cross community Wg we have two chartering organizations, with equal capacities and possibilities to see, and to have opinion about the same object under discussion. When the consensus is obtained, all works well. The problem arise when we have two different and irreconcilable positions. What are the solution for this cases?. The absense of operating principles and procedures for this Cross Community WG need to be solve for the future. JAS is a first example, but could be more in the future. We can´t to ask opinion of the ICANN legal councilor in each opportunity that this cases happen, Or promote a second round of discussions after to be taken resolution?. On the other side, we need to accept the possibility of differents points of view. In fact inside our council the resolution was taken for the mayority, not for unanimity. my two centsCarlos 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: Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us > To: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > CC: ocl(a)gih.com > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:38:42 -0500 > Subject: RE: [council] JAS > > > I do not believe option 2 will yield any real concrete results as like you say there is nothing in the bylaws that contemplates or discusses cross working groups. It would seem to me that a cross working group that operates under two separate charters ceases to be a cross working group and becomes two independent groups that may address some similar topics. > > I view number 1 as the only viable option if the nature of the cross working group is to survive here. However, I am not so sure that having 2 independent groups here is such a bad outcome. > > In my opinion, we cannot be bullied into accepting a charter proposed/adopted by another group when the charter approved by the other group addressing topics beyond the scope of the GNSO simply to keep the cross working group. That sets a really bad precedent. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:29 AM > To: GNSO Council > Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Subject: [council] JAS > > > Councillors, > > FYI, ALAC Chair Olivier Crépin Leblond has reached out to me to discuss the JAS situation. > > Unofficially, because this has not been ratified by ALAC yet, it is looking unlikely that they will accept our modified charter. > > Some within ALAC are calling for either the version of the charter that was approved by ALAC to be maintained, or for the JAS group to work under 2 separate charters. > > The second option seems surreal to me, and what I communicated to Olivier is that I see two ways forward: > > 1. ALAC and the GNSO sit down together and manage to find common ground on a mutually acceptable charter. This does present some complexities for us though, as any changes to the charter that we approved during our last teleconference meeting would no doubt need a new motion. > 2. We both refer the problem to ICANN's general Counsel. > > Because we are dealing with a cross community group and these do not really have any clearly defined status in ICANN at the moment, this problem is one that we may not feel confident to tackle alone, hence my second proposal. > > I will keep the Council informed of any further development on this front. Also, please note that an update from ALAC on the JAS situation is included in the agenda I have drafter for our next meeting. The Council leaders are currently working on this draft, which will then be submitted to the Council, as usual. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane >

2 1

Revised GNSO Council minutes 13 January 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

Dear All, Attached please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 13 January 2011. Further to Kristina Rosette's request and comment, the following sentence has been added to: Item 4: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation Just after the recitation of what Bruce said and the list of volunteers, but before the "Next Steps" "Liz Gasster raised a concern that policy staff was at maximum capacity in terms of workload and that there is a lack of available staff resources to support new work requests, and asked the Council to consider what staff work the Council would like to suspend in order to provide staff support for this work." Next steps: The Council agreed that Rosemary Sinclair would liaise with Bruce Tonkin and then the Council would consider whether it should send a letter to the Board saying the GNSO does not have the resources to undertake this work. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#jan on Monday, 31 January 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen The Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Council/Chair interaction
by Tim Ruiz 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

Those types of things can all be handled easily without a new list. I think we understand what you are proposing very well. I don't think you fully understand our concerns and perhaps this should be a topic for our next Council meeting. I do not support such a list, but if it happens as an official ICANN supported/funded list it should be archived, and archived in near real time. In addition, the "leadership" of each SG/C should be certain to get clear with its SG/C exactly how or if it will represent them in this new list. Certainly, if the various "leaders" want to get together whether on the phone, some other non-ICANN supported/funded list, etc. to discuss this or that, they don't need the Council's permission as long it's understood that each is acting in their own capacity unless they have gotten appropriate direction otherwise. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Council/Chair interaction From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 10:57 am To: tim(a)godaddy.com Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, council(a)gnso.icann.org Adrian, Tim, Needless to say I am surprised by your reaction to something that seems (to me) as innocuous as a mailing list. Maybe it would be helpful for me to go into more detail about why I think this is useful, and provide examples. One example that comes to my mind is that there could be benefit to the Council leadership and C and SG leadership in coordinating submissions to the budget requests. For example, one constituency might have a good idea about a budget item that they plan to submit as a request. Another group might also want to submit the same request, if they knew it was being suggested by one group. As a separate entity, the Council might also be in that situation. The budget request procedure is new this year (we were sent the forms a while back by Glen, I have asked for guidance and more information on how to use them and will keep the Council informed when I get that). This kind of thing might help us manage this kind of process better. Another possible example might be in planning for public meetings. For example, there has been uncertainty about whether the contracted and non-contracted party houses should meet (separately) on either Saturday or Sunday... Olga can tell us how this is shaping up for the SF meeting, but I can tell you from first-hand experience of working on planning our meetings with Glen for the past year that this has always been difficult to handle. Another point I would make is that this is consistent with the proposal that came out of the OSC's CCT work team (which is now closed) which pointed out the need for greater inter SO and AC communication and better communication with the Board. As Councillors, we obviously feel (and rightly feel I think) that it is our job to liaise with our respective groups. But I think there could be other, non-policy-specific matters where coordination would be of benefit and would probably lighten the load on the Council as a whole, if the leaders handle that. I hope this is helpful for you to better understand the way I am looking at this and why I think it is useful. Please understand that I have no religion on this. I merely proposed this to try and improve communications and processes as I have just described. This list can be deleted at once if the Council as a whole decides it should be. Thanks, Stéphane Le 19 janv. 2011 à 17:28, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > > Mason has not discussed it with the wider SG, nor even the rest of the ExCom to my knowledge. > > It is the Councilors' place to have that dialogue with their SG leadership. If there is some kind of disconnect between the Councilors and their SG then that needs to be resolved by them, not by circumventing the structure we have so painstakingly put in place. > > It takes more than a straw poll to change that structure. > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:57:53 > To: Tim Ruiz<tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [council] Council/Chair interaction > > > Thanks Tim. > > How do others on the Council feel? > > Tim, Adrian, please note that our Chair Mason Cole has expressed his support for this. > > Stéphane > > Le 19 janv. 2011 à 14:35, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > >> Was this discussed with the Council as a whole? Nothing like this should >> be done without fromal approval of the Council. For the record, I do not >> agree with this and do not believe the "Council leadership" was put in >> place to take such actions independently of the rest of the Council. >> >> >> Tim >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [council] Council/Chair interaction >>> From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder >>> Date: Tue, January 18, 2011 10:44 am >>> To: GNSO Council >>> >>> Councillors, >>> >>> I wanted to inform you that I have suggested to your group Chairs that a mailing list be created to link the C and SG leadership with the Council leadership. >>> >>> Their response was very much in favour, so a mailing list will be set up for the Council leaders (Chair and VC) and the group leaders (Chair and VC). >>> >>> The idea is to improve informal communications between the group leadership and the Council. >>> >>> We are also thinking about a regular conf call at some point, but this is not set in stone yet. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Stéphane >> > > >

4 6

JAS
by Stéphane Van Gelder 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

Councillors, FYI, ALAC Chair Olivier Crépin Leblond has reached out to me to discuss the JAS situation. Unofficially, because this has not been ratified by ALAC yet, it is looking unlikely that they will accept our modified charter. Some within ALAC are calling for either the version of the charter that was approved by ALAC to be maintained, or for the JAS group to work under 2 separate charters. The second option seems surreal to me, and what I communicated to Olivier is that I see two ways forward: 1. ALAC and the GNSO sit down together and manage to find common ground on a mutually acceptable charter. This does present some complexities for us though, as any changes to the charter that we approved during our last teleconference meeting would no doubt need a new motion. 2. We both refer the problem to ICANN's general Counsel. Because we are dealing with a cross community group and these do not really have any clearly defined status in ICANN at the moment, this problem is one that we may not feel confident to tackle alone, hence my second proposal. I will keep the Council informed of any further development on this front. Also, please note that an update from ALAC on the JAS situation is included in the agenda I have drafter for our next meeting. The Council leaders are currently working on this draft, which will then be submitted to the Council, as usual. Thanks, Stéphane

3 2

Draft GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 13 January 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 13 January 2011. Please let me know if you would like any 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#jan on Friday, 28 January 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

5 6

RE: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF
by Tim Ruiz 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

1 0

RE: [council] Council/Chair interaction
by Tim Ruiz 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

Was this discussed with the Council as a whole? Nothing like this should be done without fromal approval of the Council. For the record, I do not agree with this and do not believe the "Council leadership" was put in place to take such actions independently of the rest of the Council. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Council/Chair interaction > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Tue, January 18, 2011 10:44 am > To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Councillors, > > I wanted to inform you that I have suggested to your group Chairs that a mailing list be created to link the C and SG leadership with the Council leadership. > > Their response was very much in favour, so a mailing list will be set up for the Council leaders (Chair and VC) and the group leaders (Chair and VC). > > The idea is to improve informal communications between the group leadership and the Council. > > We are also thinking about a regular conf call at some point, but this is not set in stone yet. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane

3 3

Public Comment: GNSO Council Requests Your Input on Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidel
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jan11-en.htm Public Comment: GNSO Council Requests Your Input on Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines 18 January 2011 As part of the GNSO Improvements Process, which has as its objective to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) has now submitted to the GNSO Council the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10de… [PDF, 626 KB]). Prior to considering the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the GNSO Council is seeking your input. Comments on the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines [PDF, 626 KB] can be submitted until 8 February 2011 (see details below). Following the public comment period, the GNSO Council will review the comments received and determine whether additional modifications need to be made to the document or whether the document is ready for adoption following which it will be incorporated in the GNSO's Operating Procedures and become applicable to all new GNSO Working Groups. Background In the past, the GNSO decided policy mainly through small legislative bodies called "Task Forces." Intentionally, it is moving towards a more inclusive, representative model where key parties tackle an issue together as a "Working Group". This Working Group Model should become the focal point for policy development and enhance the policy development process by making it more inclusive and representative, and - ultimately - more effective and efficient. The PPSC tasked a Working Group Work Team (WG WT) to define this new Working Group model. The WG WT prepared a first draft that was put out for public comment, following which it reviewed the comments and modified [DOC, 188 KB] the document accordingly. In addition, the PPSC identified a number of issues that were subsequently addressed [DOC, 48 KB] by the WG WT. The proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines, as approved by the PPSC, bring together all the different elements of the Working Group process; it addresses what should be considered in creating, chartering, staffing, and instructing/guiding a WG to accomplish the desired outcome, and; secondly, what guidance should be provided to a WG on elements such as structure, decision-making, tasking, reporting, and delivering the outcome(s) as chartered. Background documents / links * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, as approved by the PPSC [PDF, 626 KB] * The GNSO Improvements Web Site * PPSC Workspace * WG WT Workspace Staff responsible: Marika Konings Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to gnso-wg-guidelines(a)icann.org until 8 February 2011. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201102-en.htm#gnso-wg…. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Extension of Public Comment Period on the Draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13jan11-en.htm Extension of Public Comment Period on the Draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan 13 January 2011 In response to community request, ICANN is extending the Public Comment period on the Draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan from 45 days to 60 days, which will now close on 25 January 2011, as community input is an important part of our Accountability and Transparency objectives. The translations of the Draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan [PDF, 220 KB] are available in the five United Nation languages: * العربية [PDF, 571 KB] * Español [PDF, 649 KB] * Français [PDF, 636 KB] * Русский [PDF, 551 KB] * 中文 [PDF, 583 KB] We appreciate the valuable input received from the community to date, and will begin incorporating this feedback, along with the comments received in Cartagena, to create a revised 2011-1014 Strategic Plan. The next step is to post the Strategic Plan and submit to the Board for consideration and approval. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0