January 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: OSC- Council operating procedures - proxy votes
by Stéphane Van Gelder 11 Jan '11

11 Jan '11

Councillors, Please see the message below from Philip Sheppard, Chair of the OSC. Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 janv. 2011 à 12:15, Philip Sheppard a écrit : > Stephane, > at the OSC meeting in Cartagena the OSC agreed to revisit the section of the op procedures covering proxy votes. > We have heard informally some SGs found these troublesome while others found them fine. > The Non-commercial SG have told us formally they do not fit with their internal procedures. > > Clearly all procedures should be efficient and easy to administer. > Proxy votes are intended to ease the burden of council members not add to it! > > In order to recommend change we need more substantive input then we have to date. > May I ask you therefore to circulate this to council and request the following input from each SG? > We would like one agreed response per SG please and a combined one from the nom-comm appointees. > Suggest 31 January 2011 as deadline. > > Philip > Chair OSC > ------------------ > Questionnaire on Council proxy votes procedure sections 4.4 and 4.5 > > 1. Which SG are you? > 2. Do you find the current procedures for proxy votes fit for purpose? Yes or No > 3. If No - what are the problems? > 4. If No - what specific changes would you like? > 5. Even if you answered Yes, do you have any additional suggestion for making the proxy votes easier to administer? > 6. Do you have any other comments about the administrative ease of other voting procedures in sections 4.4 or 4.5 eg absentee voting? > > ----------------------

1 0

RrSG Comment on Rec6 Recommendations
by Tim Ruiz 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

The RrSG is in general agreement with the responses to the Rec6 recommendations that were recorded by Staff in the Explanatory Memo on Morality and Public Order included in the proposed final AGB found at: http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-morality-public-order… Tim

2 1

Request for Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion
by Neuman, Jeff 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

All, I submit these red-lines to the Fast Flux Motion with the hope that they be considered friendly amendments. The credit for these redlines should go to Greg Aaron from Afilias, who chaired the RAP group and just wanted to see some of the language match between the Fast Flux work and the RAP final report. I recognize the FF motion has not been seconded and I am not sure any amendments can be accepted unless the motion is seconded. So, if that is necessary, then you can count this as a "second" of the motion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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.

2 1

RE: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report
by Tim Ruiz 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Hi Kristina, The language comes directly from the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf). Of course, the DT's recommendations ultimately came from pages 26-33 of the RAP WG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf). So the motion just uses their words. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Mon, January 10, 2011 12:28 pm > To: 'Tim Ruiz' <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Tim, > > A clarifying question: Is the reference to "any > insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process" intended to encompass > insufficiencies and inequalities from the perspective of all > stakeholders/segments of the ICANN community? If not, from whose > perspective are the "insufficiencies/inequalities" intended to be identified? > > Thanks. > > K > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:03 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report > > > A few of us have collaborated on the following motion in response to the > RAP WG final report. Even though it is technically within the timeline > we currently recognize, I personally do not expect it to be acted on at > the meeting on the 13th but felt it at least warranted a second and some > discussion: > > ----- Begin Motion ----- > > Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its report > to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), > and > > Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations > and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed > approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration > Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report, and > > Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team > submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November > 2010 (see > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf), > and > > Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its > Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena. > > RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward > the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource > requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal > Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. > ICANN Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with > its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in > a timely manner. > > RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the > current state of the UDRP. This effort should consider: > > -- How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, > and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process. > > -- Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing > UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated. > > The Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on > this issue might be managed. > > ------ End Motion ------ > > Thanks, > Tim > >

1 0

Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report
by Tim Ruiz 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

A few of us have collaborated on the following motion in response to the RAP WG final report. Even though it is technically within the timeline we currently recognize, I personally do not expect it to be acted on at the meeting on the 13th but felt it at least warranted a second and some discussion: ----- Begin Motion ----- Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), and Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report, and Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf), and Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena. RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner. RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP. This effort should consider: -- How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process. -- Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated. The Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed. ------ End Motion ------ Thanks, Tim

4 3

FW: Business Constituency Comment on Rec6
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Forwarded From: Steve DelBianco] This comment is in response to GNSO Council's 08-Dec-2010 request for constituency comments on recommendations of the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding Council's Recommendation 6 (the "morality and public order" section of the draft AGB) The Business Constituency (BC) addressed this issue in its Dec-2010 comments on the proposed final AGB. (see page 7 of BC comments posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00026.html and attached here) Relevant points from that submission are repeated here in response to Council's request. In our Dec-2010 comments, the BC explains our rationale for concerns over the proposed objection process: The BC is concerned that confusion and controversy may result from subjective and undefined aspects of the Limited Public Interest and Community objections. The BC understands that ICANN may need to outsource objection and evaluation tasks during the new gTLD application process. But a decision to outsource services does not enable ICANN to escape accountability for decisions made by outsourcing vendors. ICANN's Board must be the final resolution body for disputes that arise during evaluation and objection processes. The challenges of managing both internal and outsourced objection processes underlies the BC's recommendation for an initial batch of fewer than 500 applications: "The first batch should be limited to significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems." (see page 3 of our Dec-2010 comments, attached) The BC also called for more definitions and specifics in the Guidebook section on Limited Public Interest objections: 3.1.2.3 ".. an applied-for gTLD string may be considered contrary to generally accepted legal norms..." the BC believes that term "generally accepted" should be specifically defined. The objector must prove substantial opposition within the community it has identified itself as representing. the BC believes the term "substantial opposition" should be specifically defined. 3.1.5 Independent Objector A formal objection to a gTLD application may also be filed by the Independent Objector (IO). The IO does not act on behalf of any particular persons or entities, but acts solely in the best interests of the public who use the global Internet. The BC believes the Guidebook should include a description of the methodology ICANN will use to solicit interest from independent Objectors. The IO will be selected by ICANN, through an open and transparent process, and retained as an independent consultant. the BC recommends adding specific decision criteria regarding the selection and supervision of the Independent Objector. Anyone may file a [Limited Public Interest Objection]. Due to the inclusive standing base, however, objectors are subject to a ³quick look² procedure designed to identify and eliminate frivolous and/or abusive objections. the BC believes that open-ended guidelines may create a perpetual loop of opposition. The BC recommends a more specific regime. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency www.bizconst.org

2 1

Second needed for Motion on the implementation of the Fast Flux recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council on 3 September 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry 09 Jan '11

09 Jan '11

Dear All, Please see the updated motions for the Council meeting on 13 January 2011. Unless I have missed something, a seconder is needed for this motion: 4. Motion on the implementation of the Fast Flux recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council on 3 September 2009 *Made by: Stéphane van Gelder* *Seconded by:* Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

amendments to original JAS motion
by Rafik Dammak 09 Jan '11

09 Jan '11

Hello, I would like to suggest those friendly amendments (as compromise) to the original JAS motion proposed by me and seconded by Bill: I would like propose changing: a) change "Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need." to "Propose the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need." b) change "Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set " to "Propose mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that could be established operating under the set " c) Propose mechanism(s) for revenue income and other asset management to support new gTLD applicants who meet the criteria as established in objective (a) of this charter amendment. d) Discuss with Backend Registry Service Providers the extent of of coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers (e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship) and propose methods for coordinating that assistance. e) change "Discuss and establish methods" to "Discuss and propose" methods f) change "Establish methods" to "Propose methods" g) change "establish policies and practices" to "propose policies and practices" h) replace "propose a percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance." with "propose a percentage of that fee that could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance." Regards Rafik Dammak Twitter: @rafik Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak

4 6

GAC/ICANN meeting in Feb
by Stéphane Van Gelder 07 Jan '11

07 Jan '11

Councillors, Just FYI, I have sent in my capacity as Chair an email to Heather and Peter asking about the status of this meeting and whether it will be open to observers. I have not had an answer yet and will let the Council know when I do. If anyone from Staff can shed some light on whether the meeting will be open or closed, I'm sure that would be useful to any Councillors, or anyone from any GNSO group, who would like to attend. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

Form for 2012 budget requests
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Jan '11

07 Jan '11

Dear Council members, Please find attached the form that should be used for budget requests for Fiscal Year 2012 (a "pdf" version was embedded in the presentation that was circulated in December). Forms should be completed by the SO/AC leadership (the Chairs of the SGs and Cs as well as the Council itself if there are budget items that the Council chooses to request) and sent to: controller(a)icann.org<mailto:controller@icann.org>. The deadline is the end of January 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0