October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

Jeff, I have made some suggestions. Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 3:37 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, Please find enclosed a proposed draft of a note that I believe should be sent by Stephane to the GAC documenting our discussion yesterday on the IOC/Red Cross names, including both a recap of our understanding of the proposal and the questions we have. This is a first draft and I welcome your comments or suggestions. I know the suggestion that we form a joint group was met with silence, but I strongly believe we should continue to press on that. Thanks. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear __________, The GNSO Council truly appreciates the work that has gone into the GAC’s “Proposal to the GNSO RE: Protecting the International Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent Names in New gTLDs” (“Proposal”). We want to assure you that the GNSO Council has taken, and will continue to take, the proposal seriously. At this point in time, we do not have a consensus position of the Council on this topic, but believe the way forward is to try and find a way work with collaboratively with the GAC to find a workable solution to the issues identified. To that end, we wanted to document our understanding of the proposal to ensure that we had a common understanding on the Proposal. Our understanding is that the Proposal at the top-level is (a) to place the exact strings contained in Schedule A of the Proposal on the official reserved names list as opposed to the “Strings Ineligible for Registration” list in the Applicant Guidebook, and (b) that the reservation be a permanent one as opposed to applying in just the initial round. At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings contained in Schedule A be “reserved”. With respect to this proposal, the GNSO raised several questions during its discussions this weekend. The first is to confirm whether the reservation sought applies just to exact matches of those marks or whether it is the GAC’s desire to “reserve” all strings containing those marks. We have assumed it was the former, but would like to confirm. In addition, the GNSO Council noted that there are several types of Reserved Names contained within the proposed new gTLD ICANN Registry Agreement. The first type which only consists of the string “EXAMPLE” is a reserved name which may under no circumstances be delegated at the second level. The second type of Reserved Names are those that are initially reserved, but may be used by the Registry Operator (eg, www, nic and whois). A third type of reserved names are those that are initially reserved, but may be delegated under certain limited circumstances. For example, two character strings are initially reserved, however, the Registry Operator may propose release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes. Further, country and territory names are initially reserved, but may be released to the extent that the Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), or subject to review by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN. Finally, the GNSO understands that with respect to both the IOC and Red Cross marks, there may be certain circumstances in which the IOC, Red Cross and/or their affiliated entities may want to use the domain names and the second-level themselves. In addition, notwithstanding the international protection afforded to these marks, there may be certain circumstances where third parties do have a legitimate right to use and register these marks either due to grandfathering rules, geographic considerations, etc. (eg., Olympic Airlines and Olympic paint). Therefore, the GNSO believes that there should be a mechanism to release these names to those entities and that such a mechanism still needs to be developed. The GNSO Council would like to thank the GAC for the well thought out and detailed proposal and would like to again request that the GNSO work collaboratively together to address these questions We believe a good way forward would be solicit volunteers from both the GAC and GNSO to form a committee or task force to work through these issues with the goal of sending those recommendations back to their respective organizations for approval. We know time is limited to resolve these matters and remain committed to do so as quickly as possible. Respectfully submitted, _____________________ Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / 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.

1 0

Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

At 24/10/2011 06:37 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >All, > >Please find enclosed a proposed draft of a note that I believe >should be sent by Stephane to the GAC documenting our discussion >yesterday on the IOC/Red Cross names, including both a recap of our >understanding of the proposal and the questions we have. This is a >first draft and I welcome your comments or suggestions. I know the >suggestion that we form a joint group was met with silence, but I >strongly believe we should continue to press on that. > >Thanks. > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >Dear __________, > >The GNSO Council truly appreciates the work that has gone into the >GAC's "Proposal to the GNSO RE: Protecting the International >Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent Names in New gTLDs" >("Proposal"). We want to assure you that the GNSO Council has >taken, and will continue to take, the proposal seriously. At this >point in time, we do not have a consensus position of the Council on >this topic, but believe the way forward is to try and find a way >work with collaboratively with the GAC to find a workable solution >to the issues identified. > >To that end, we wanted to document our understanding of the proposal >to ensure that we had a Replace phrase: we both have a > common understanding on Replace word: of > the Proposal. Our understanding is that the Proposal at the > top-level is (a) to place the exact strings contained in Schedule A > of the Proposal on the official reserved names list as opposed to > the "Strings Ineligible for Registration" list in the Applicant > Guidebook, and (b) that the reservation be a permanent one as > opposed to applying in just the initial round. Add: This implies that the names may not be used as gTLDs, even at the request of the designated trade-mark owners. > >At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings contained in >Schedule A be "reserved". With respect to this proposal, the GNSO >raised several questions during its discussions this weekend. The >first is to confirm whether the reservation sought applies just to >exact matches of those marks or whether it is the GAC's desire to >"reserve" all strings containing those marks. We have assumed it >was the former, but would like to confirm. I think that a few examples of names that could be registered under this assumption should be included. Perhaps Olympics-Seoul, Olympic-Games and Red-Cross and RedCross-Tsunami. It may also be worth pointing out that at the second level, there are currently no (few?) examples where such comparison test are made during the second-level domain registration process, and the implementation of such a requirement may be problematic. > > >In addition, the GNSO Council noted that there are several types of >Reserved Names contained within the proposed new gTLD ICANN Registry >Agreement. The first type which only consists of the string >"EXAMPLE" is a reserved name which may under no circumstances be >delegated at the second level. The second type of Reserved Names >are those that are initially reserved, but may be used by the >Registry Operator (eg, www, nic and whois). A third type of >reserved names are those that are initially reserved, but may be >delegated under certain limited circumstances. For example, two >character strings are initially reserved, however, the Registry >Operator may propose release of these reservations based on its >implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding >country codes. Further, country and territory names are initially >reserved, but may be released to the extent that the Registry >Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), or >subject to review by ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee and >approval by ICANN. > >Finally, the GNSO understands that with respect to both the IOC and >Red Cross marks, there may be certain circumstances in which the >IOC, Red Cross and/or their affiliated entities may want to use the >domain names and the second-level themselves. In addition, >notwithstanding the international protection afforded to these >marks, there may be certain circumstances where third parties do >have a legitimate right to use and register these marks either due >to grandfathering rules, geographic considerations, etc. (eg., >Olympic Airlines and Olympic paint). Therefore, the GNSO believes >that there should be a mechanism to release these names to those >entities and that such a mechanism still needs to be developed. > >The GNSO Council would like to thank the GAC for the well thought >out and detailed proposal and would like to again request that the >GNSO work collaboratively together to address these questions We >believe a good way forward would be solicit volunteers from both the >GAC and GNSO to form a committee or task force to work through these >issues with the goal of sending those recommendations back to their >respective organizations for approval. We know time is limited to >resolve these matters and remain committed to do so as quickly as possible. Lastly, their cover letter says: "The GAC's proposal characterizes protection of the Red Cross and IOC names at the second level as an implementation aspect of the new gTLD program, consistent with existing registry contracts." Does that imply an expectation that whatever comes out of this process will be applied to existing gTLDs as well? Alan > >Respectfully submitted, > >_____________________ > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy >21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / 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. >

1 0

TR: Dakar / Senegalese Opening Session
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

Dear All, Please see information on the Opening ceremony at 11:30am today. ************************ ICANN 42 Opening Ceremony Starts at 11:30 (Senegal Time) Room: Big Amphitheater Overview President of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade. ICANN CEO and President Rod Beckstrom, Board Chair Steve Crocker and Governmental Advisory Committee Chair Heather Dryden will provide brief remarks. We also expect to hear from Senegal's Minister of Communication and Telecommunications, Moustapha Guirassy. Concluding the session, President Wade will address the attendees. Special security rules will be in effect as President Wade speaks. Please be advised that once the event begins, you will not be able to leave until the conclusion of his remarks. No latecomers will be seated and attendees should plan to remain for the duration of the speech. To show respect to our many Senegalese guests, ICANN staff members are asked to take seating in overflow room B/C 12. These plans are subject to last minute change. http://dakar42.icann.org/node/27413 *************************** Thank you, Regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 2

Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

All, Please find enclosed a proposed draft of a note that I believe should be sent by Stephane to the GAC documenting our discussion yesterday on the IOC/Red Cross names, including both a recap of our understanding of the proposal and the questions we have. This is a first draft and I welcome your comments or suggestions. I know the suggestion that we form a joint group was met with silence, but I strongly believe we should continue to press on that. Thanks. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear __________, The GNSO Council truly appreciates the work that has gone into the GAC's "Proposal to the GNSO RE: Protecting the International Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent Names in New gTLDs" ("Proposal"). We want to assure you that the GNSO Council has taken, and will continue to take, the proposal seriously. At this point in time, we do not have a consensus position of the Council on this topic, but believe the way forward is to try and find a way work with collaboratively with the GAC to find a workable solution to the issues identified. To that end, we wanted to document our understanding of the proposal to ensure that we had a common understanding on the Proposal. Our understanding is that the Proposal at the top-level is (a) to place the exact strings contained in Schedule A of the Proposal on the official reserved names list as opposed to the "Strings Ineligible for Registration" list in the Applicant Guidebook, and (b) that the reservation be a permanent one as opposed to applying in just the initial round. At the second-level, the Proposal asks that the strings contained in Schedule A be "reserved". With respect to this proposal, the GNSO raised several questions during its discussions this weekend. The first is to confirm whether the reservation sought applies just to exact matches of those marks or whether it is the GAC's desire to "reserve" all strings containing those marks. We have assumed it was the former, but would like to confirm. In addition, the GNSO Council noted that there are several types of Reserved Names contained within the proposed new gTLD ICANN Registry Agreement. The first type which only consists of the string "EXAMPLE" is a reserved name which may under no circumstances be delegated at the second level. The second type of Reserved Names are those that are initially reserved, but may be used by the Registry Operator (eg, www, nic and whois). A third type of reserved names are those that are initially reserved, but may be delegated under certain limited circumstances. For example, two character strings are initially reserved, however, the Registry Operator may propose release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes. Further, country and territory names are initially reserved, but may be released to the extent that the Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), or subject to review by ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN. Finally, the GNSO understands that with respect to both the IOC and Red Cross marks, there may be certain circumstances in which the IOC, Red Cross and/or their affiliated entities may want to use the domain names and the second-level themselves. In addition, notwithstanding the international protection afforded to these marks, there may be certain circumstances where third parties do have a legitimate right to use and register these marks either due to grandfathering rules, geographic considerations, etc. (eg., Olympic Airlines and Olympic paint). Therefore, the GNSO believes that there should be a mechanism to release these names to those entities and that such a mechanism still needs to be developed. The GNSO Council would like to thank the GAC for the well thought out and detailed proposal and would like to again request that the GNSO work collaboratively together to address these questions We believe a good way forward would be solicit volunteers from both the GAC and GNSO to form a committee or task force to work through these issues with the goal of sending those recommendations back to their respective organizations for approval. We know time is limited to resolve these matters and remain committed to do so as quickly as possible. Respectfully submitted, _____________________ Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, 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.

1 0

Re: [council] Fwd: Proposed agenda ccNSO -GNSO councils meeting Dakar Monday 23 October 12.30-14.00
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

Updated agenda ccNSO-GNSO councils meeting * Welcome * Participation of ccNSO or ccTLD managers in GNSO Consumer Metrics WG * Current status * modes of participation * Update ccNSO Finance WG (ccNSO) * Cross-TLD registration scam (GNSO) * GAC-particpation in ccNSO WG ( ccNSO) * Strengthening GNSO-ccNSO councils meeting (ccNSO) * Example ccNSO- GAC group * Model for ccNSO-GNSO meeting ( appoint dedicated councillor's)?) * Follow-up cross- community WG (ccNSO-GNSO) * What are the issues? * High priority? Kind regards, Bart

2 1

Fwd: Proposed agenda ccNSO -GNSO councils meeting Dakar Monday 23 October 12.30-14.00
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

Councillors, The ccNSO has provided us with a list of topics for our joint session with them tomorrow. Thanks to the ccNSO for doing this. Please send comments if you have them. Stéphane > > From: Bart Boswinkel > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:49 AM > To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu; jeff.neuman(a)neustar.us > Cc: Byron Holland; HiroHOTTA; Lesley Cowley; Liz Gasster; Glen de Saint Géry; Gabriella Schittek; David Olive; Kristina Nordstrom; Marika Konings > Subject: Proposed agenda ccNSO -GNSO councils meeting Dakar Monday 23 October 12.30-14.00 > > Dear Mary, Jeff and Stephane, > On behalf of Lesley, Byron and Hiro please find included suggestions for the agenda for the upcoming ccNSO-GNSO council meeting in Dakar meeting: > Welcome > Participation of ccNSO or ccTLD managers in GNSO Consumer Metrics WG > Current status > modes of participation > Cross-TLD registration scam (GNSO) > Update ccNSO Finance WG (ccNSO) > Strengthening GNSO-ccNSO councils meeting (ccNSO) > Example ccNSO- GAC group > Model for ccNSO-GNSO meeting ( appoint dedicated councillor's)?) > Follow-up cross- community WG (ccNSO-GNSO) > What are the issues? > High priority? > > Please let me know if you suggest any changes. > Thank you and kind regards, > Bart

2 1

RE: [council] NCA assignments
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 23, 2011

Oct. 23, 2011

1 0

RE: [council] Meeting with the Board - Qualities of a new CEO
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 23, 2011

Oct. 23, 2011

I want to clarify that I did not mean to imply that ICANN needs to do a COO search (apologies to Akram). My point was intended to be that operational expertise should not be a primary consideration in the CEO search. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Meeting with the Board - Qualities of a new CEO From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Date: Sun, October 23, 2011 8:29 am To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Cc: "'GNSO Council List'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Operations should not be a primary CEO role. That is a COO role and I agree that operations is/will be critical over the next few years. But trying to find someone with both qualifications is not practical. I suggest they are separate, and equally important for different reasons. So to the extent that the operations role needs improvement, there should do a separate search for a well qualified COO (or President/COO). Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Meeting with the Board - Qualities of a new CEO From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Sun, October 23, 2011 8:22 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Cc: 'GNSO Council List' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I actually disagree and believe that these next two years, operation expertise is of paramount importance above all others. If the new gtld process does is not executed flawlessly, I think the organization will have fundamental problems for years to come. The CEO needs to be well respected by his/her staff and needs to show leadership within his/her own organization. Government Relations should, in my opinion, be the job of global partnerships and others within the executive staff. That is the way it is in most organizations. 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: Sunday, October 23, 2011 12:59 PM To: Tim Ruiz; jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Meeting with the Board - Qualities of a new CEO I like Tim’s questions and believe that we should pose them. I agree that operational expertise should be a secondary consideration. I believe that leadership, government relations, private sector, financial, and international experience are important. Given the challenges that ICANN will face in the next CEO’s term, I think charisma should be the least important consideration - to the extent it is considered at all. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 8:41 AM To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Meeting with the Board - Qualities of a new CEO The comments offered so far are excellent and I agree with them for the most part. But there does seem to be a dichotomy of qualities/qualifications that are deemed necessary. An individual experienced in Government Relations, International affairs, muti-stakeholder processes, track record of high level leadership, etc. and with a level of charisma may not track well with the operational experience and qualities that also have been mentioned. My opinion is that the Board is better served by looking at the former, leaving operational expertise to another role. I also have two questions: 1. Will be a mechanism for the community to submit candidates that they believe should be considered. 2. There have been rumors that many of the Board will not consider another USA based candidate. I would like to confirm that that is not an official, or unofficial, criteria. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Meeting with the Board - Qualities of a new CEO From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Date: Sat, October 22, 2011 11:15 am To: "'GNSO Council List'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, PLEASE GIVE INPUT IN ORDER TO BEST INFORM TOMORROW’S DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD Thanks, Jonathan ________________________ Hiring a new CEO What qualities do you think we ought to be seeking in a new CEO? Perhaps thinking about: · The nature of ICANN & the role it plays. Balancing technology sector, innovation, operational stability, financial management, being run in the public trust · Qualities of the previous incumbents and what you did or did not think were effective (for ICANN) about them? · The new/current world order (AOC, new gTLD programme, global economic environment, emergence of new technologies, enhanced interest of governments) · Desirable skills & experience – charisma, leadership, government relations, private sector, financial, operational, international experience What are your criteria for openness, transparency etc. in the hiring process? (bearing in mind considerations of responsibility to candidates and community, privacy, Board confidence) · Do we expect to see (and influence by e.g. public comment) the specification and key selection criteria? · Do we expect see and give feedback on the above or anything before the hiring process commences? · Do we expect to have any interaction during the course of the hiring process? Updates, information, influence? If so, how? · Do we expect to influence or comment on the final outcome? Anything else? · Any other comments or issues on the hiring of a new CEO? · Performance criteria and measures of a successful appointment? · Term & termination provisions?

1 0

NCA assignments
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 23, 2011

Oct. 23, 2011

Councillors, Please see below the assignments that the NomCom has made following the correspondence received from ICANN General Counsel on this issue. These assignments will therefore be enacted on Wednesday, when we sit the New Council, as planned. My thanks to the NomCom for working so quickly to provide us with their assignments. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > Objet : Rép : Fwd: formal position requirement > Date : 23 octobre 2011 18:47:48 HAEC > À : John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> > 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>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Rob Hall <rob(a)momentous.com>, "Vanda UOL" <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Joette Youkhanna <joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org> > > Dear John, > > When we made our appointments we were not aware > we should assign our GNSO selected nominees to > the Non-Contracted House and Contracted House. > > Since receiving your email, October 19th, the > 2011 NomCom reconvened, discussed the > appointments and agreed on the following > assignments: > > Lanre Ajayi, GNSO Non-Contracted House > Thomas Rickert, GNSO Contracted House > > 1 year terms. > > Regarding the issue of future rotation, as the > 2011 NomCom process is coming to a close, I will > recommend to future NomComs that they discuss and > make recommendations in due course. > > If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. > > Thank you. > > Warm regards, > > Adam > > Adam Peake > Chair, ICANN Nominating Committee 2011 > <http://nomcom.icann.org/> > > > > > At 10:43 AM -0700 10/19/11, John Jeffrey wrote: >> Resending - may have been an error in transmission. >> >>> >>> 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 >>>> ³one voting representative shall be assigned >>>> to each House . . . by the Nominating >>>> Committee.² This Bylaws provision requires >>>> the NomCom to assign voting representatives >>>> among the GNSO¹s 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 NomCom¹s 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 Jeffrey >>>>> ICANN General Councel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I¹m 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: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ³BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSŠ >>>>> ARTICLE VII: NOMINATING COMMITTEE Š >>>>> Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL >>>>> 1. Subject to the provisions of Transition >>>>> Article XX, Section 5 of these Bylaws and as >>>>> described in Section 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; and >>>>> e. 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.² >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 wrong, please) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Bylaws are mandatory into ICANN environment for all and everybody. >>>>> -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 ³the legal² into >>>>> ICANN environment, not fulfill this rules >>>>> means ³not legal². 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 ³some >>>>> parts² 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 ³by consensus² 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 ³the >>>>> transparency² (what is part of CORE) of >>>>> ICANN. And IMHO is the same to say to all >>>>> community: ³don`t take in account bylaws >>>>> rules, because somebody can change, in >>>>> agreement with other, if it is onvenient for >>>>> they .²` >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 ³transparency² into ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Before to 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 Aguirre >>>>> >>>>> NCA GNSO Council - ICANN >>>>> former ALAC member by LACRALO >>>>> Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios >>>>> [redacted] >

2 1

Re: formal position requirement
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 23, 2011

Oct. 23, 2011

Thanks JJ, I am copying the Council on my response. From my reading of the bylaws, I see no mention of a requirement for rotation. So in theory, an NCA could be constantly given the same assignment by the NomCom. Is this read correct? If so, why are you suggesting rotation systems in your last paragraph? Adam, please let us know what the NomCom plans to do and when. I'm sure you understand that the GNSO is keen to get this matter resolved before we sit the new Council, on the Wednesday of the Dakar meeting… Stéphane Le 19 oct. 2011 à 19:43, John Jeffrey a écrit : > Resending - may have been an error in transmission. >> >> 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 Jeffrey >>>> ICANN 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 COUNCIL >>>> 1. Subject to the provisions of Transition Article XX, Section 5 of these Bylaws and as described in Section 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; and >>>> e. 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 wrong, please) >>>> >>>> -Bylaws are mandatory into ICANN environment for all and everybody. >>>> -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 to 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 Aguirre >>>> >>>> NCA GNSO Council - ICANN >>>> former ALAC member by LACRALO >>>> Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios >>>> [redacted] >>> >>

2 2