October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Nom-com appointees to the GNSO Council
by Jonathan Robinson Oct. 20, 2011

Oct. 20, 2011

Dear Adam, I am aware that there has been some e-mail discussion about the nom-com appointees to the GNSO Council. In this regard, I thought it would be helpful if I brought you up to speed with a couple of details. It may be helpful to you to know that In the absence of specific direction from the NomCom on assignments, Thomas Rickert and the CPH previously agreed for Thomas to be the appointee assigned to the CPH. Indeed, this was announced to the Council by email back in early September and raised no concerns at the time. Following on from this and in an effort to help Thomas get to know our house, and vice-versa, we held an introductory house meeting with Thomas by telephone a couple of weeks ago. This meeting comprised an informal introductory discussion, including background and prior experience. It was a helpful start to the working relationship and the CPH and Thomas being able to get to know one another better. My first impressions of Thomas were very positive so, on a personal note, thank-you for the Nom-Coms effective work in appointing him. I anticipate that he will make a constructive and positive addition to the Council. If there is something you need to do to formalise this assignment, I expect that the CPH and Thomas will be most grateful if you could proceed to do so. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0

Re: eco reception
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 20, 2011

Oct. 20, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Thanks to Wolf for thinking of this. I had forgotten Thomas was not on the Council list yet. About that, Glen, perhaps as a courtesy to the incoming Councillors and to help them transition in, we could add them now rather than waiting for Wednesday? Thanks Thomas for your explanations and thanks to Rosemary, Bill and others who have commented. Adrian, I understand your comments and once again, if there is the slightest bit of hesitation in how this could be used, I am happy not to do it. Perhaps we can all discuss on Saturday when we are all here. If we feel my presence there might be problematic, I can always let Thomas know there's a problem by Sunday. Short notice but better that than creating problems we don't need. Stéphane Le 20 oct. 2011 à 10:29, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> a écrit : > Stéphane, > > since I wasn't sure Thomas is on the council list already. I've forwarded him your message. > > Please see his answer attached which may be helpful to share with the council. > > More information about eco is available on http://en.eco.de/. > > Kind regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > Von: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2011 09:35 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: WG: [council] Fwd: eco reception > > > Dear Wolf-Ulrich, > eco is hosting receptions at ICANN meetings for quite a while now. The idea is to provide a form for eco members as well as guests from the ICANN community to meet and discuss. Each time, we invite a speaker to make a brief speech setting the scene for further discussions amongst the participants or just to update them on certain topics. > > In the past, we had speakers such as David Olive (replacing Rod Beckstrom) or Harald Alvestrand. > > On this occasion, we have asked Stéphane to give an overview of the current issues being worked on and future challenges of the GNSO as we felt that a lot of attention has been given to the new gTLD program. Yet, there are many and also very important issues that require our attention and community participation. > > This is not about promoting eco or myself joining the GNSO Council next week. It is rather to raise awareness and stimulate more active participation by the community. > > Kind regards, > Thomas > > ============= > thomas-rickert.tel > +49.228.74.898.0 > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2011 02:14 > An: Adrian Kinderis > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Council > Betreff: Re: [council] Fwd: eco reception > >> The point, as far as I'm concerned, is doing GNSO outreach. >> >> As for the other questions, I'll let Thomas answer if he wants to. >> >> If me doing a 10-minute talk on the way the GNSO works is going to give rise to suspicions, rather than constructive comments on how this can help improve awareness of what the GNSO Council does, I'm happy not to do it. >> >> Are you objecting to me doing it? Do others feel I should not do it? Please let me know asap. It's because I have been invited in my capacity as Chair that I wanted to give the Council prior warning in case this posed a problem to some. >> >> Stéphane >>

1 0

Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses‏
by carlos dionisio aguirre Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

FYI - the ICANN General Counsel's advice on this issue, below 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: john.jeffrey(a)icann.org To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com CC: Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; liz.gasster(a)icann.org; daniel.halloran(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:17:05 -0700 Subject: Fwd: formal position requirement Dear CarlosThank you for your inquiry. Please see the attached note that I forwarded to the GNSO and the NomCom Chairs. John Jeffrey General Counsel & Secretary ICANN JJ(a)ICANN.org Begin forwarded message:From: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> Subject: Fwd: formal position requirement Date: October 19, 2011 9:19:12 AM PDT To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> Bcc: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> Dear Stephane and Adam,I write to you jointly as Chairs of the GNSO and the NomCom. I received the attached note from Carlos Dionisio Aguirre regarding the NomCom appointees to the GNSO and noted the need to provide advice on the ICANN Bylaws. Article X, Section 3.e requires the NomCom to appoint three members of the GNSO Council. Of those appointees, one shall be non-voting, and “one voting representative shall be assigned to each House . . . by the Nominating Committee.” This Bylaws provision requires the NomCom to assign voting representatives among the GNSO’s contracted and non-contracted party houses. Pursuant to the Bylaws, this assignment work should not be left to the GNSO.I appreciate that with the GNSO Restructuring, the initial assignment of the single NomCom Appointee (NCA) selected by the NomCom in 2010 did not pose a lot of complexity. However, now that the restructured form of the GNSO Council is in place and the NomCom is making appointments for multiple NCAs, it is important for the NomCom to complete the assignment process and identify the roles of the NCAs to the GNSO. If possible, I encourage the NomCom to complete this assignment process prior to the ICANN AGM in Dakar, Senegal and the seating of the new GNSO Council members (28 October 2011).Due to the NomCom’s appointment rotation (2 NCAs to the GNSO in odd years, 1 NCA in even years), it may be beneficial for the NomCom and GNSO to consult together to determine if the GNSO would be better served by having both voting NCAs rotate at the same time, or if it is preferable to have 1 voting and 1 non-voting NCA rotate at the same time, with the term of the other voting NCA rotating in even years. Further, as the NomCom and the GNSO continue dialogue on identifying skill sets for the NCAs to the GNSO, skills desirable for each role (Non-Contracted House NCA, Contracted House NCA and Non-Voting NCA) could be identified for NomCom consideration.I look forward to seeing you in Dakar. If you have any questions, or we can be of assistance to you, please let us know. John Jeffrey General Counsel & Secretary ICANN JJ(a)ICANN.org From: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com To: john.jeffrey(a)icann.org Subject: formal position requirement Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:09:01 +0000 Cordoba, October 10th 2011. Dear John JeffreyICANN General Councel I’m writting to you, to ask your formal opinion as General Councel in relation with the meaning of one clause of the ICANN bylaws. First, let me introduce myself: I`m Carlos Dionisio Aguirre, some of my hats are: Lawyer Specialist in business law, teacher of Economy, and Informatic`s Legislation at National University of Cordoba in Argentina , International Director of AGEIA DENSI (Academic NGO), Vice President of ADIAR (Argentinian Cyberlaw Lawyers Asociation), Former ALAC member elected and reelected by LACRALO, and currently ICANN NCA GNSO Council. Im very interested in your particular opinion & intelligence (understanding) about the following clause, and as ICANN General Councel: “BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS…ARTICLE VII: NOMINATING COMMITTEE …Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL1. Subject to the provisions of Transition Article XX, Section 5 of these Bylaws and as described in Se! ction 5 of Article X, the GNSO Council shall consist of:a. three representatives selected from the Registries Stakeholder Group;b. three representatives selected from the Registrars Stakeholder Group;c. six representatives selected from the Commercial Stakeholder Group;d. six representatives selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; ande. three representatives selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee, one of which shall be non-voting, but otherwise entitled to participate on equal footing with other members of the GNSO Council including, e.g. the making and seconding of motions and of serving as Chair if elected. One Nominating Committee Appointee voting representative shall be assigned to each House (as described in Section 3(8) of this Article) by the Nominating Committee.” This formal asking, has to do particularly with the last sentence in the paragraph exposed and highlighted in red. Some opinions by me, first: ( you can contradict if you believe I am wron! g, please) -Bylaws are mandatory into ICANN environment for all and ev erybody.-All into ICANN environment are regulated by our bylaws.-everybody have to respect and fulfill the clauses content in ICANN bylaws.-If bylaws are representing “the legal” into ICANN environment, not fulfill this rules means “not legal”. So, the fact commited after that, is null, or at least could be reviewed.-Bylaws were made by all community for ICANN community, and it is not possible that “some parts” in agreement ( through detour the decisions of the whole community), choose to change, against what bylaws are saying. Now : I am asking formaly your position as ICANN General Councel, because: IMHO the sentence mentioned is absolutely clear, transparent, no need interpretation and shows what the bylaws want in relation on it. IMHO If the NCA appointees were not assigned to each house (into GNSO), the situation would constitute a violation or at least a serious lack of commitment by NomCom. IMHO if GNSO after that (the previous situation) convalidate this (the no! assign by GNSO) and decide “by consensus” of two houses (CPH & NCPH), assign one of them on each, is also a violation of our bylaws, or at least act against it. IMHO If the situation occur. What happen with the resolutions taken by GNSO? Having in account that the quorum was obtained on this way (with some members bad designated in each houses, or designated against bylaws rules. IMHO consider that the situation is serious, because is happening right now (and is not new), affect seriously “the transparency” (what is part of CORE) of ICANN. And IMHO is the same to say to all community: “don`t take in account bylaws rules, because somebody can change, in agreement with other, if it is onvenient for they .”` That is what I feel about this complicated situation, and my legal formation forced me to claim for a formal interpretation of this clause, in order to solve (IMO) the serious situation what is happening, and keep safe the concept of “transparency” into ICANN. Before t! o conclude, and give in advance my thanks for your prompt response, I want to say that in this event there are not involved my own interests. Im part of the ICANN community, Im part of the civil society into this, and Im currently acting by me, in my personal capacity, and in their representation. Lastly I Think would be good to get your definition and opinion in order to give advice and define this controversy. Is my intention give publicity to this Thanks, in advance All my respect. Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALOAbogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios[redacted]

1 0

Topics for meeting with Board?
by Rosette, Kristina Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

Greetings! Just realized that I don't think I've seen any email traffic on topics for our meeting with the Board. Did I miss it (which is entirely possible)? I'm perfectly content to wait until this weekend to discuss if we don't have to provide topics to Board support staff in advance. Safe travels everyone! K

5 8

RE: [council] Topics for meeting with Board?
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

I tend to agree with Kristina here. While it may not be directly policy, conflicts at the Board level certainly affect our policy recs and we are certainly right in wanting to be sure that our recs are treated fairly and without later reproach at the Board level. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Topics for meeting with Board? > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Wed, October 19, 2011 9:23 am > To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, StÃ©phane Van > Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > My view is that it absolutely is a Council issue. Part of our role in managing policy development is to recommend (through our votes) GNSO policies to the Board. The current conflicts of interest policy and the lack of an anti-revolving door policy call into question whether the consideration of the GNSO policy recommendations may be/have been/are being/could be adversely affected by the current policy and lack of one, respectively. > > I do not care whether the Board members expressed their displeasure or do again. Candidly, I would think that they’d all welcome the discussion - if only to dispel the impression that they don’t care about this issue and/or don’t consider it important, which is what the transcript of our last meeting with them could be read to mean. > > K > > > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 10:04 AM > To: Rosette, Kristina; Stéphane Van Gelder > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Topics for meeting with Board? > > > > Kristina, > > I would like to get everyone’s thoughts on that one. In Singapore that issue did not go over so well and we had a number of board members express their displeasure at having that discussion. My question to you is whether that topic is a Council issue or whether that issue is the type of issue that should be taken up directly with the board by you, your stakeholder group, etc. The Council is responsible for managing policy work and personally I am not sure this falls within that purview. > > That said, I just gave you my personal view (not that of my stakeholder group or as vice chair). So if others disagree with me and want to add it to the list of topics to discuss with the Board, I would be happy to do so. > > Thanks. > > 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. > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:42 AM > To: Stéphane Van Gelder > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Topics for meeting with Board? > > > > I’d like to discuss conflicts of interest/anti-revolving door policies. > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 7:56 AM > To: Rosette, Kristina > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [council] Topics for meeting with Board? > > > > Thanks for raising the question Kristina. There has been some discussion on this and I seem to remember that Jeff mentioned it during our last GNSO meeting as he covered the agenda for Dakar. > > > As "meeting organizer" for Dakar, Jeff is collating our topics for Board/ccNSO/GAC. > > > > And the Board has been asking us for topics. So let me bounce off your email to encourage everyone to submit topics to Jeff or on list if you have not already done so. > > > > Thanks, > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > Le 18 oct. 2011 à 19:03, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > > > Greetings! > > > > Just realized that I don’t think I’ve seen any email traffic on topics for our meeting with the Board. Did I miss it (which is entirely possible)? I’m perfectly content to wait until this weekend to discuss if we don’t have to provide topics to Board support staff in advance. > > > > Safe travels everyone! > > > > K > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Topics for meeting with Board?
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

Jeff, I agree with Kristina that the issue is of paramount interest. But I note that there is a 90-minute public session devoted to single subject on Thursday in Dakar. Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Topics for meeting with Board? From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Wed, October 19, 2011 7:03 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Kristina, I would like to get everyone’s thoughts on that one. In Singapore that issue did not go over so well and we had a number of board members express their displeasure at having that discussion. My question to you is whether that topic is a Council issue or whether that issue is the type of issue that should be taken up directly with the board by you, your stakeholder group, etc. The Council is responsible for managing policy work and personally I am not sure this falls within that purview. That said, I just gave you my personal view (not that of my stakeholder group or as vice chair). So if others disagree with me and want to add it to the list of topics to discuss with the Board, I would be happy to do so. Thanks. 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. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:42 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Topics for meeting with Board? I’d like to discuss conflicts of interest/anti-revolving door policies. From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 7:56 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Topics for meeting with Board? Thanks for raising the question Kristina. There has been some discussion on this and I seem to remember that Jeff mentioned it during our last GNSO meeting as he covered the agenda for Dakar. As "meeting organizer" for Dakar, Jeff is collating our topics for Board/ccNSO/GAC. And the Board has been asking us for topics. So let me bounce off your email to encourage everyone to submit topics to Jeff or on list if you have not already done so. Thanks, Stéphane Le 18 oct. 2011 à 19:03, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : Greetings! Just realized that I don’t think I’ve seen any email traffic on topics for our meeting with the Board. Did I miss it (which is entirely possible)? I’m perfectly content to wait until this weekend to discuss if we don’t have to provide topics to Board support staff in advance. Safe travels everyone! K

1 0

Motion - Outreach task force charter
by Olga Cavalli Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

Dear Councillors, I am submitting the following motion to be considered during our next meeting in Dakar. Best regards Olga MOTION RE: OUTREACH TASK FORCE CHARTER Made by: Olga Cavalli Seconded by: WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008; WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Report recommendations; http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups; WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document “Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… ; WHEREAS, at its meeting on 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council accepted the document and directed staff to submit the document for 45 days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum; WHEREAS, at its meeting on 19 May 2011 the GNSO Council determined that as there were no public comments that required changes to the document the work of the OSC with respect to the global outreach program recommendations was complete and directed staff to seek volunteers to form a Outreach Task Force Charter Drafting Team (OTF DT); WHEREAS, an OTF DT was formed and it drafted a Charter that it presented to the GNSO Council Chair on 08 September 2011; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council Chair sent the Draft Charter to the GNSO Council and asked Councilors to share the document with their respective groups and to provide comments by 10 October 2011; WHEREAS, on 18 October 2011 the OTF DT provided to the GNSO Council a revised Draft Charter [insert link] based on comments it received; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Draft Charter [insert link], thanks the OTF DT for its efforts on this important initiative, and dissolves the OTF DT; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council requests staff to seek volunteers for Chair and Vice Chair of the OTF.

4 4

About that question to the candidate
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

Stephane, Understand that my initial question was driven by what I read in the RAA discussion paper: a belief held on the part of the ICANN staff that the Council is home to disagreements that lead to delays in substantive matters. I agree with you that progress in a multi-stakeholder organization is hard and meaningful. So how come there is a disconnect between what you/we and staff see as reality? I fully appreciate your desire to be a guide, but that can be too soft a role. As chair, I feel, it falls on you (with our support) to be an advocate for the process and the Council, too. You well know that the latest staff document is not the only instance when the Council was accused of being a hinderance. Think JAS. My question is simply this: How can the Council do/how can it operate so that deliberation is not labeled delay and argument is not called disagreement? On this particular question and in light of the effect it can have on the reputation of the Council (and its individual members), agreeing to disagree won't be enough. On other stuff, sure. Some stuff needs to be more fully baked before a decision can be made. But not this one. Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] A question to the candidate From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Sat, October 15, 2011 3:48 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> John, If you're not going to be in Dakar, then let me try and provide you with an answer onlist. Unfortunately, I won't be back online myself for a few days, but we can pick up the discussion after that. I think the Council brings together the most diverse groups within the ICANN universe. Are we sure we either expect, or want, those groups to be uniform in their opinions and responses? I think the Council's diversity of views should, and need, to be expressed. That is where our strengths lie. In the fact that stakeholders from very different horizons can pool together their knowledge, experience, and opinions to steer the GNSO as a whole towards a common goal that best serves the GNSO (and the wider Internet) community. At SG and constituency level, it is quite normal to have only one side of the story expressed. Each group is looking after its own community, and that's the way it should be. But the Council is the only place where those different views can be benchmarked against other groups' views and mutual progress achieved. That makes the Council very unique within ICANN, and vital. I feel strongly that the Chair must serve as a guide in this process. The GNSO Council works according to very exact procedures and rules. Rules, in fact, that we have just spent years, and expended huge amounts of effort and resources, honing under a new structure. Over the past year, as Chair, I have done my best to be the custodian of those rules. I would argue, for example, that part of the answer to your question lies in using the existing processes in the ICANN bylaws for gTLD policy development. Too often people think they can short cut the process, or use a better process - and in nearly all cases the short cut ends up taking longer, due the time used in discussing process. If we use the process we have - then the time can be focussed on the substantial issues. My job as Chair has been, and will continue to be if the Council so wishes, to make sure we use our processes, and use them well. Thanks for your question, Stéphane Le 15 oct. 2011 à 09:08, Adrian Kinderis a écrit : Mind you JB, agreeing to disagree is not necessarily a bad thing given the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives in the Council. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john(a)crediblecontext.com Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011 10:19 PM To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org; Glen_de_Saint_Géry Subject: RE: [council] Re: A question to the candidate Dakar is fine, as long as we do not settle for a "we'll just agree to disagree" conclusion. I will not be on hand, so just imagine I am there to keep poking at this matter. Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: A question to the candidate From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 9:41 am To: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Cc: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen(a)icann.org> Thanks John. I am unsure whether you expect an answer by email or would prefer that we "stockpile" this question for the "Q&A with candidate" session that we have planned in Dakar? I would think that the second option is better, as it means everyone can join the discussion as and when they wish. Also, as I am leaving for Dakar tomorrow and will probably be out of email range for a few days, if anyone else has any questions that would mean I could address them all at the same time, which might work better. Would you be OK with this? Stéphane Le 14 oct. 2011 à 17:16, <john(a)crediblecontext.com> a écrit : I forgot to switch my earlier email to plain text. Sorry all. Berard Stephane, As you think about how you might approach a second term as Chair of the Council, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on this: In the “Discussion Paper on Next Steps to Produce a New Form of the RAA” sent to the Council yesterday by Kurt Pritz, is this: "We also note that disagreements in the GNSO Council regarding the process over the last year have resulted in delays in considering the substantive issues." This is not the first time or the softest way in which we have heard this criticism of delay and disharmony. How would you move to solve it? Cheers, Berard

2 1

Re: Kim Von Arx - WHOIS Policy Review Team
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 19, 2011

Oct. 19, 2011

Copying the Council for their info. Help me understand here Alice. Are you saying that because the team is close to completing it's work, you do not feel it is necessary for the GNSO to go through the process of replacing Kim? Stéphane Le 14 oct. 2011 à 15:39, Alice Jansen a écrit : > Dear Stephane, > Dear Konstantinos, > > This is to formally inform you that GNSO - NCSG candidate, Kim Von Arx, had decided to resign from the WHOIS Policy Review Team due to professional workload reasons . Below you will find the announcement he sent to the public email list copying ICANN consituency travel and Konstantinos. > > Note that Kim is the designated penholder of a section on ccTLDs. In light of this, Konstantinos has kindly requested that Kim complete his task. > > As Kim was appointed to the Team as representative of your supporting organization, the GNSO is more than welcome to fill in this position by putting forward candidates for Rod Beckstrom and Heather Dryden's consideration. As you know, this means that an internal call for Applicants would need to be launched followed by an endorsement process. Given that this is quite a lengthy process, we would like to provide you with an overview of where the Team stands in terms of deliverables: > During the Marina del Rey face-to-face meeting held on 20-21 September, the WHOIS Review Team Members decided that they would keep 30 November 2011 as their completion date to submit their draft final report and that the final step to gather feedback would be the Costa Rica meeting at the end of which they would issue their final recommendations. > > Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have questions or concerns. > > Thanks, > > Very best regards > > Alice > > ---- > From: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim(a)vonarx.ca> > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:50:29 -0700 > To: "rt4-whois(a)icann.org WHOIS" <rt4-whois(a)icann.org>, ICANN Constituency Travel <constituency-travel(a)icann.org> > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk> > Subject: [Rt4-whois] senegal trip > > All: > > Please note that I regret to inform you that I have to cancel the upcoming ICANN trip. I simply do not have the time to leave work and my litigation issues for a week. > > I apologize for this and apologize for not having been able to provide all of the time required in the last few weeks. I really was hoping that things would be improving, but in order to be fair to everyone, I believe it is best for me to resign at this stage. > > I have cc-ed Kontantinos on this correspondence and maybe he can quickly assign a new person to this team. I understand that Milton has quite a bit of experience in that field as well. Regardless, I believe that Kathy can fully represent both sides of the coin, i.e, the registry community as well as the non-commercial constituency. > > I enjoyed working with all of you and hope to be crossing paths again in the near future. Again, my sincerest apologies, but my life is currently quite busy and very time consuming. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > >

2 1

RE: ICANN Dakar Meeting: Arrival to Dakar
by Mary Wong Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

Wonder if there will be a separate line/bus for those of us without yellow fever vaccinations ... :( Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> To:Glen de Saint Géry<Glen(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/18/2011 2:36 PM Subject: [council] RE: ICANN Dakar Meeting: Arrival to Dakar That sounds easy peasy...????? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:09 PM To: ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: FW: ICANN Dakar Meeting: Arrival to Dakar Dear All, Below is what to expect upon your arrival to Dakar. 1) Upon landing, please see the person holding an “ICANN 42 Dakar” sign, where they will re-direct you to go to a separate bus from the rest of the group. 2) The bus will then take you to a separate holding facility where you will be processed for your passport, visa, and etc. 3) After you have been processed, you will then need to complete a form indicating which hotel the shuttle bus will drop you off. 4) If you brought any luggage, they will escort you back to the main airport where you will collect your luggage. 5) After you’ve collected your luggage, you will then be escorted to your shuttle bus to take you to your hotel. Safe travels!! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0