October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group
by Stéphane Van Gelder Dec. 17, 2011

Dec. 17, 2011

Steve, Please find attached a letter that I am sending you on behalf of the GNSO Council. Kind regards, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair

1 1

Fwd: Cross TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 31, 2011

Oct. 31, 2011

Councillors, Please see the response below from Patrik Fältström, Chair of the SSAC, in response to our request in relation to evaluating and monitoring cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting by the SSAC. In light of this response, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether there are any alternative approaches to addressing the Registration Abuse Recommendations in this regard, or acknowledge that monitoring of these types of abuses cannot be done at this stage by the GNSO Council or SSAC but that at any point in time, should new data or information arise, these issues can be re-opened for consideration by the GNSO Council. We may want to discuss in further detail at the wrap up meeting. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> > Objet : Rép : Cross TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting > Date : 21 octobre 2011 11:05:14 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : SSAC SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org> > > Dear Stephane, > > Thank you for writing to the SSAC regarding the outcomes of the RAP WG on cross-TLD registration scam and Domain Kiting. > > As to the GNSO Council request that SSAC consider evaluating the cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting issues, upon review of the RAP WG’s outcomes and recommendations, we cannot see how the SSAC might improve upon these findings. > > We note that the SSAC does not have an operational role, and is unable to monitor disparate TLDs for ongoing abuse, other than anecdotally. We do care about abuse, and have completed several related reports that you may find useful to your continued efforts. For example: > > SAC044: A Registrant’s Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (05 November 2010) > SAC040: Measures to Protect Domain Registration Services Against Exploitation or Misuse (19 August 2009) > SAC028: SSAC Advisory on Registrar Impersonation Phishing Attacks (26 May 2008) > SAC025: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC025) (28 January 2008) > SAC024: Report on Domain Name Front Running (February 2008) > > We are, of course, ready to perform rigorous analysis if more data regarding these or other alleged abuses is available. The protection of registrants from abusive practices is of interest and importance to SSAC. > > Regards, > Patrik Fältström > Chair, SSAC > > > On 17 okt 2011, at 20:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >> Hi Patrik, >> >> At its meeting on 6 October, in follow up to the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group, the GNSO Council tasked me as Chair, with regards to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, to communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse'. >> >> For your information, you will find attached to this message the findings of the RAP Working Group in relation to these issues. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to discussing this with you in Dakar if required. >> >> Best, >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> <Cross TLD Registration Scam - Domain Kiting - 10 October 2011.doc> >> >

2 1

Re: [council] Informal conversation
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu Oct. 31, 2011

Oct. 31, 2011

Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane

11 16

GNSO related Board resolutions out of the Dakar meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 31, 2011

Oct. 31, 2011

Councillors, Please see the Board resolutions from the Dakar meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm Resolution 1.5 addresses the PEDNR recommendations which the Board adopted. Resolution 1.12 thanks the departing Councillors. Resolution 2 addresses the JAS work and requests that Staff look at implementation of that work. Resolution 7 addresses the RAA. The is a request for an issue report, as a prelude to a possible PDP. Resolution 8 initiates a comment period on the recommendations of the PDP WT. Stéphane

2 2

ccnso and FOWIG
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 31, 2011

Oct. 31, 2011

Councillors, Up until now, Olga has been serving as the GNSO's liaison to the ccNSO's Framework of Interpretation WG. The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current policies and guidelines pertaining to the delegation and redelegation of ccTLD’s. Would anyone like to volunteer to take Olga's place as liaison? Stéphane

1 0

Fwd: Meeting with the ICANN ASO Address Council
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 31, 2011

Oct. 31, 2011

Councillors, Please see the message below re our meeting with the ASO in Dakar and a link to a survey you might like to fill in. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Tom <tom.mackenzie1(a)gmail.com> > Objet : Meeting with the ICANN ASO Address Council > Date : 31 octobre 2011 11:34:22 HNEC > À : Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > Hi Stephane, > > Here's the link: http://items.fr/asomeeting.php > > It would be greatly appreciated if you could circulate it among the gNSO Council and any other members of the gNSO who attended the meeting. > > If you want to add an introductory line to your email I could suggest something along the lines of: "During the recent ICANN 42 meeting in Dakar a meeting was held between the gNSO Council and the ASO Address Council. What were your impressions of this meeting? ITEMS International is a consultancy firm conducting an independent review of the ICANN-ASO and they would value your feedback. They have prepared a simple two-question survey which we urge you to respond to. Thanks for your cooperation.." > > Kind regards,

1 0

Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1: GAC Advice on New gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 28, 2011

Oct. 28, 2011

Annex 1 of the GAC Communiqué: Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1: GAC Advice on New gTLDs ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee was formed to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues. The process for GAC Advice on new gTLDs is intended to address applications that are identified by governments to be problematic, e.g., that potentially violate national law or raise sensitivities. GAC members can raise concerns about any application to the GAC. The GAC as a whole will consider concerns raised by GAC members, and agree on GAC advice to forward to the ICANN Board of Directors. The GAC can provide advice on any application. For the Board to be able to consider the GAC advice during the evaluation process, the GAC advice would have to be submitted by the close of the Objection Filing Period (see Module 1). GAC Advice may take one of the following forms: l. The GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular application should not proceed. This will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved. ll. The GAC advises ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application "dot-example". The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision. lll. The GAC advises ICANN that a particular application should not proceed unless remediated. This will raise a strong presumption for the Board that the application should not proceed unless there is a remediation method available in the Guidebook (such as securing one or more government's approval) that is implemented by the applicant. Annex II Operating Principles Article XII Principle 47 The GAC works on the basis of seeking consensus among its membership. Consistent with United Nations practice1, consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. Where consensus is not possible, the Chair shall convey the full range of views expressed by members to the ICANN Board.

1 0

GAC Communiqué
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 28, 2011

Oct. 28, 2011

From: http://gac.icann.org GAC Communiqué - Dakar I. Introduction The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) met in Dakar, Senegal during the week of October 22-27, 2011. Forty-nine Governments participated in the meeting: 46 present and 3 by remote participation and six Observers. The GAC expresses warm thanks to the local hosts, The Ministry of Communication, Telecommunications and Information Technology (MICOMTELTIC) and the Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Post (ARTP) for their hospitality in organizing the meeting and ICANN for supporting the GAC during the meeting. II. New gTLDs The GAC further discussed and decided on the formulation of GAC advice for inclusion in Module 3 of the Applicant Guidebook [Annex I]. During the discussion ICANN Staff underlined their understanding that advice regarding the definition of Geographic Names should be adopted by the GAC. The GAC congratulates the JAS working group on the final report and recommendations, which are consistent with GAC advice. The GAC looks forward to the Board providing clear timelines for implementation of the recommendations to enable needy applicants to join in full and meaningfully in the first round. The GAC raised concern about the unpredictability of the actual number of applications that governments would have to digest to proceed after the end of the application period. The GAC made clear, that if the number of applications published by ICANN significantly exceeds 500, GAC members might not be able to process a very large number of applications in the very short early warning procedure and in the limited time for issuing GAC advice on all these strings. Further, the GAC asked ICANN for clarification about its intention to process these applications in batches of 500, in the case that there are more than 500 applications. The GAC urges ICANN to clarify the procedures and implications for applicants being processed in different batches, as this might have implications for competition and applicants' business models. Following presentations by the ICANN staff and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, the GAC took note of the SSAC consideration of the combined impact of new gTLDs and other changes such as the introduction of IPv6, DNSSEC and IDNs to the root. The GAC welcomes the confirmation of the commitment by the ICANN Board to provide a full report with a complete analysis, including all underlying data, of the root system scalability well before the opening of the new gTLDs application round. The GAC further welcomes the confirmation of the commitment by the Board to evaluate the impact on the system after the 1st round, with the understanding that the launch of a second round is contingent on the outcome of this evaluation, in particular the absence of negative effects on the root system. The GAC believes that in order for this evaluation to be effective, an appropriate and trustable monitoring system needs to be in place. In its discussions with the Board regarding the Communication Plan for new gTLDs, the GAC emphasised the importance of promoting the gTLDs application round in all countries, including developing countries. The GAC suggested that levels of awareness be continually assessed and reviewed, and priorities and target areas under the Plan be adjusted accordingly in the run up to the launch of the round. The GAC welcomed the assurances received from the Board and staff that the evaluation of applications will ensure a level playing field for applicants and that any conflicts of interest will be identified and avoided accordingly. III. Law Enforcement (LEA) Recommendations In recent years, the Internet has grown to have over two billion users and be a significant contributor to the global economy. Cyber-crime is a growing threat to the security and stability of the Internet, with broad and direct public policy impacts. Recent estimates suggest that the direct financial impact of cyber crime is extremely significant. Law enforcement agencies have identified a series of specific problems which are limiting their ability to address this growing problem. As part of this, law enforcement agencies have identified specific areas of concern in the ICANN context, relating to contractual weaknesses and a lack of necessary due diligence. To address these urgent problems, in 2009 law enforcement agencies made 12 concrete recommendations to reduce the risk of criminal abuse of the domain name system. These recommendations were informally socialized with the registrar community, the GAC, and with ICANN compliance staff over the course of several months, before the GAC advised the Board in its Brussels communiqué that it formally endorsed the recommendations. Direct exchanges between law enforcement agencies and registrars continued in September 2010 in Washington D.C., in February 2011 in Brussels, and during the March and June 2011 ICANN meetings. As a complement to the June exchanges in Singapore, the GAC urged the Board to support actions necessary to implement those recommendations as a matter of urgency. To date, none of the recommendations have been implemented, and the risks remain. The GAC therefore advises the ICANN Board to take the necessary steps to ensure that ICANN's multistakeholder process effectively addresses these GAC-endorsed proposals as a matter of extreme urgency. IV. Accountability and Transparency Review Team Recommendations (ATRT) The GAC welcomes the update provided by ICANN staff on the ATRT Recommendations progress and the suggestions presented with regards to the implementation of recommendations 9 through 14 on the GAC role, effectiveness and interaction with the Board. The GAC looks forward to an expedited implementation of the Joint Working Group and ATRT recommendations and is keen to continue working with the Board on the Recommendations related to the GAC. V. Conflict of interest The GAC expresses extreme concern about the inadequacy of the existing rules of ethics and conflict of interest in the light of recent events and therefore welcomes the approval of the motion by the Board Governance Committee on 15 September 2011 concerning "ethics and conflicts of interest". The GAC looks forward to the publication of a timeline with clear and effective actions as a conclusion of the Dakar meeting or shortly thereafter. In order to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model as enshrined in ICANN, the GAC underlines the extreme urgency of putting in place effective and enforceable rules on conflicts of interest. The GAC will keep this important issue under review and may come forward with further advice before the Costa Rica GAC meetings. VI. Meeting with the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) The GAC and the GNSO exchanged views on a number of issues, beginning with an overview by ICANN staff of the GNSO policy development process. Consistent with the recommendations of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team and the related GAC-Board Joint Working Group, the GAC stressed its interest in ensuring that GAC views are provided and taken into account at early stages in the policy development process. The meeting also discussed the implementation of the Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) recommendations to mitigate Domain Name System abuse, which were endorsed by the GAC in June 2010. The GAC expressed its disappointment that registrars were only able to report on their consideration of three of the twelve LEA Recommendations. Further, the reported progress fell substantially short of what GAC members believed had been achieved during its meetings with registrars in Singapore in June 2011. The GAC also expressed concern that there was no clarity on how the other nine recommendations were being progressed, despite the registrars' agreement at the Singapore meeting to provide regular status reports. The GAC informed the GNSO Council of its intention to request the ICANN Board to take prompt and concrete action to implement the GAC/LEA recommendations. The meeting also addressed the GAC's proposal to the GNSO on the protection mechanism for the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent names at the top and second levels. The GAC requested feedback from the GNSO on the proposal as a first step in collaborating on advice for the ICANN Board in this regard, consistent with the ICANN Board Resolution in Singapore. The GAC looks forward to further engagement with the GNSO to work more effectively within the ICANN processes and reinforce the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model. VII. Meeting with the At-Large Advisory Group (ALAC) The GAC met with the ALAC to discuss Conflict of Interest issues within the ICANN Board and staff. The GAC agrees that this is a critical matter that needs to be addressed as a high priority within the community. The GAC and ALAC also discussed the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group as well as the ALAC and GAC Joint Statement. The GAC expects a decision to be taken for implementation in time for the opening of the first new gTLD round. In light of the common interest of advancing improvements in the ICANN model, the GAC and ALAC also discussed the ongoing work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). The GAC shared the areas identified as a priority in the framework of the ATRT and the Joint Working Group recommendations, looking forward to an expedited implementation. VIII. GAC Operating Principles The GAC amended Principle 47 of its Operating Principles clarifying its understanding of consensus. The definition now introduced derives from United Nations practice and understands consensus as adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of formal objections. The GAC noted that according to UN practice individual members may make reservations, declarations, statements of interpretation and/or statements of position regarding a consensus decision, provided such texts do not represent an objection to the consensus [Annex II]. IX. Joint session with the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) The GAC met with the ccNSO to discuss the progress and ongoing work of the Framework of Interpretation cross-community Working Group (FoI) on delegation and redelegation, and the mechanisms for the GAC to provide feedback and contribute to this work within a timeline that the ccNSO has provided. In addition, the ccNSO shared an update of its current work areas and its organisational structure. The GAC is eager to further engage with the ccNSO to provide timely inputs on the different stages of the FoI work. X. Meeting with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) The GAC thanks the SSAC for providing an update on its work including blocking and reputation systems, WHOIS matters and single label domain names. Further, the GAC thanks the SSAC Chair for discussions on Root Zone Scaling and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). The GAC looks forward to receiving further updates on DNS blocking matters and other relevant security and stability related matters. XI. Meeting with the Nominating Committee (NomCom) The GAC met with the Nominating Committee and discussed the skill-sets needed of an ICANN Director, as outlined in the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) recommendations to improve the selection process. The NomCom invited individual GAC members to provide further inputs. XII. Election of Vice-chairs The GAC has reelected the current vice-chairs, Choon-Sai Lim (Singapore), Maria Häll (Sweden) and Alice Munyua (Kenya) to continue their mandate for another year. *** The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who have contributed to the dialogue with the GAC in Dakar. The GAC will meet during the period of the 43rd ICANN meeting in San José, Costa Rica.

1 0

Re: [council] Fwd: draft letter on JAS WG to the Board
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu Oct. 28, 2011

Oct. 28, 2011

Anybody else have comments or care? If not I would urge Stéphane to send ASAP. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: Thanks Mary and Wolf for doing this. I have put this in a word document, and edited mostly with a mind to make the letter truly palatable by all groups. My take is that we are doing this to send the Board the message that we have not brushed this aside, but not to give them political messages about JAS (each group can do that by itself). Thoughts? Stéphane P.S.: Glen, is there GNSO letterhead for this kind of letter? Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:23, Thomas Rickert a écrit : > Well done, Mary and Wolf-Ulrich! > > Thomas > > > > Am 27.10.2011 um 15:17 schrieb Mason Cole: > >> Looks good Mary. Nicely done. >> >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu >> Sent: Thu 10/27/2011 8:04 AM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: [council] Fwd: draft letter on JAS WG to the Board >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> Wolf-Ulrich's and my proposed draft is below. Apologies that, due to the limited functionality of the email program on my tablet, I've not been able to send just the text cut and pasted into a single email. >> >> Please let us know if you are fine with the letter. If I may, can I ask that comments be directed as far as possible to the substance rather than style (though I'm more than ready to take lessons on that in less time sensitive communications :-) >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: AW: P.S. Re: Draft letter to GAC >> From: "<KnobenW(a)telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> >> To: Mary Wong <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> >> CC: >> >> Mary, as I said I'm ok with the text. >> >> I would like to ask councillors whether we could give the following hint to the board regarding the fee reduction: >> << >> In particular we are confident that a common view can be achieved on the fee reduction which we see essential for needy applicants who qualify, thereby >> ensuring benefits from the new gTLD program are open to all parts of the community. >> >> >> >> Which may be inserted into the 3rd para (see attached) >> >> See you later >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2011 15:53 >> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich >> Betreff: P.S. Re: Draft letter to GAC >> >> Oops, I meant draft letter to the Board! >> >> "Mary Wong<mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Wolf, thanks for volunteering to help out! What do you think of this - >> >> (From Stéphane as Council chair to Steve Crocker) >> >> Dear Dr. Crocker, >> >> I am pleased to send the following note on behalf of the GNSO Council, in relation to the recommendations contained in the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group (WG) Final Report. We understand that the Board has been working on the issue of how ICANN can demonstrate its commitment to ensuring fair and non-discriminatory access by and adequate support for needy applicants in the new gTLD program, and hope that the GNSO community can be of assistance in this regard. >> >> The GNSO Council and community which it represents shares the Board's commitment and fully supports the goals around which the JAS WG was formed. The Council is extremely grateful to the WG and its volunteers, for the incredible amount of work and the many substantive recommendations that it made, including in the Milestone Reports that were published prior to the Final Report. We accepted all the WG reports and have actively encouraged each of the GNSO's constituences and stakeholder groups to submit substantive comments and, where appropriate, level of support for each of the WG's recommendations. >> >> We understand that the Registry and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups have each submitted formal comments. We believe that other groups will follow suit. As the overall issue and specific recommendations are fairly complex, spanning financial, technical and policy implementation matters, we hope the Board understands that this is not a topic on which there is a unified community consensus. We believe that, as each constituency and stakeholder group's comments are received, it will be possible to see where there is consensus and/or support, and where there is disagreement. >> << >> In particular we are confident that a common view can be achieved on the fee reduction which we see essential for needy applicants who qualify, thereby >> ensuring benefits from the new gTLD program are open to all parts of the community. >> >> >> In addition, we hope that more specific implementation issues and suggestions may emerge from these comments. >> >> We are pleased that the Board has demonstrated a continuing and serious interest in the work of the JAS WG, and wish to inform you that the Council and GNSO community stands ready to assist the Board in coming to implementable decisions regarding this very important issue. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> Stéphane Van Gelder >> GNSO Council Chair >> >> >> > > ___________________________________________________________ > Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt > Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) > Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert > HRB 9262, AG Bonn > > Büro / Office Bonn: > Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany > Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 > > Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: > Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany > Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 > > Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 > > mailto: rickert(a)anwaelte.de > skype-id: trickert > web: www.anwaelte.de > > > > > >

2 1

WHOIS Service Requirements WG seeks volunteers
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

As I mentioned at the council wrap-up, the WHOIS Services working group, which is preparing a survey on WHOIS service requirements, seeks additional volunteers. This is not policy development, but data-gathering on technical requirements (that might later inform technical improvements and/or policy development). If your constituencies have volunteers for this work, or want more information, please let me know, as Council liaison. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

Stephane, I am good with the letter, but note that the second paragraph is grammatically challenged. I have restated it as: As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding of the proposal. The Proposal,at the top-level, places 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 permanent, not just for the initial new gTLD round. This implies that the names may not be used as gTLDs, even at the request of the designated trade-mark owners. Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Tue, October 25, 2011 3:15 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Thanks to Jeff for starting us off on this, and to all those who proposed edits. I have tried to group these together in the attached document. I have only included actual edits, not suggestions, as I did not want to put words in other people's mouths. Please review/comment as required. Stéphane Le 24 oct. 2011 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : > Some additional suggested changes (the attached incorporates Tim's suggestions.) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:13 AM > To: john(a)crediblecontext.com > Cc: GNSO Council; Neuman,Jeff > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names > > > Agree with John's edits with a couple of suggestons: > > In the second paragraph, first sentence would read better as: > As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding > of your proposal. > > In the third paragraph perhaps instead of asking how it affects existing > registrations, we make it statement that, as we understand it, there > would be no impact on existing registrations. > > Not married to either edit, just suggestions. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: > IOC/Red Cross Names > From: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> > Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 7:26 am > To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > 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. > > > <GAC letter.doc>

7 10

GNSO Council resolutions
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, please find resolution 1 that was passed at the meeting of the old GNSO Council and resolution 2 that was passed by the new GNSO Council that reconvened at the end of the meeting in Dakar on 26 October 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion to Adopt the Policy Development Process Work Team Updated Final Report - deferred from the Council meeting on 6 October 2011. WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm) 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 PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf) on 1 June 2011 to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS the GNSO Council opened a 30-day public comment period on the Final Report (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jun11-en.htm) WHEREAS the GNSO Council referred those comments back to the PDP-WT for consideration (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) WHEREAS the PDP-WT has reviewed those comments and updated the report as deemed appropriate (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405500/PDP-WT+Public+Comm…) WHEREAS the PDP-WT submitted its Updated Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf) to the GNSO Council on 27 September 2011. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the revised GNSO Policy Development Process as reflected in the proposed Annex A and PDP Manual as outlined in the PDP Updated Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf) RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the procedures of the new Annex A shall be applicable to all requests for Issue Reports and PDPs initiated following adoption by the ICANN Board. For all ongoing PDPs initiated prior to the adoption by the Board, the Council shall determine the feasibility of transitioning to the procedures set forth in this Annex A for all remaining steps within the PDP. If the Council determines that any ongoing PDP cannot be feasibly transitioned to these updated procedures, the PDP shall be concluded according to the procedures set forth in Annex A in force on before the adoption of the new Annex A by the Board. 2. GNSO Council Chair election The GNSO Council is delighted to announce the election of Stéphane van Gelder as Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as Vice Chair of the Non Contracted Parties House (NCPH) and Jeff Neuman as Vice Chair of the Contracted Parties House (CPH). The Council wishes to thank the outgoing NCPH Vice Chair, Mary Wong for her year of service and dedication. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Informal conversation
by Mason Cole Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

I would at some point when things are not so tense suggest that we politely remind the GAC that the GNSO has similar workload challenges. The two bodies need to commit to cooperating on a two-way street if the GAC has increased policy influence expectations. To be clear I am not suggesting anything unduly impolite -- I just want the GAC to be better educated about the details of various groups' work and concerns. I believe that precisely is what led to the GAC's confrontation over the weekend. Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>; council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Oct 27 10:17:26 2011 Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Stéphane, thanks for having dealt with this already! I think that the suggestion that we send someone is most interesting and we should make a decision whether or not to grab this opportunity to open up an additional communication chanel in a timely fashion given the current difficult situation. I would very much welcome if we accepted the offer. Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0 Am 27.10.2011 um 16:48 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>: > > Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! > > An interesting suggestion… > > Stéphane > > > > Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> a écrit : > >> Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? >> >> Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? >> >> Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> All, >> >> As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. >> >> I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. >> >> The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. >> >> With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). >> >> Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. >> >> The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). >> >> Hope this is helpful. >> >> Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. >> >> Stéphane >> > >

1 0

Fwd: draft letter on JAS WG to the Board
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

Dear all, Wolf-Ulrich's and my proposed draft is below. Apologies that, due to the limited functionality of the email program on my tablet, I've not been able to send just the text cut and pasted into a single email. Please let us know if you are fine with the letter. If I may, can I ask that comments be directed as far as possible to the substance rather than style (though I'm more than ready to take lessons on that in less time sensitive communications :-) Thanks and cheers Mary -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: P.S. Re: Draft letter to GAC From: "<KnobenW(a)telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> To: Mary Wong <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> CC: Mary, as I said I'm ok with the text. I would like to ask councillors whether we could give the following hint to the board regarding the fee reduction: << In particular we are confident that a common view can be achieved on the fee reduction which we see essential for needy applicants who qualify, thereby ensuring benefits from the new gTLD program are open to all parts of the community. >> Which may be inserted into the 3rd para (see attached) See you later Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2011 15:53 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: P.S. Re: Draft letter to GAC Oops, I meant draft letter to the Board! "Mary Wong<mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> wrote: Hi Wolf, thanks for volunteering to help out! What do you think of this - (From Stéphane as Council chair to Steve Crocker) Dear Dr. Crocker, I am pleased to send the following note on behalf of the GNSO Council, in relation to the recommendations contained in the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group (WG) Final Report. We understand that the Board has been working on the issue of how ICANN can demonstrate its commitment to ensuring fair and non-discriminatory access by and adequate support for needy applicants in the new gTLD program, and hope that the GNSO community can be of assistance in this regard. The GNSO Council and community which it represents shares the Board's commitment and fully supports the goals around which the JAS WG was formed. The Council is extremely grateful to the WG and its volunteers, for the incredible amount of work and the many substantive recommendations that it made, including in the Milestone Reports that were published prior to the Final Report. We accepted all the WG reports and have actively encouraged each of the GNSO's constituences and stakeholder groups to submit substantive comments and, where appropriate, level of support for each of the WG's recommendations. We understand that the Registry and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups have each submitted formal comments. We believe that other groups will follow suit. As the overall issue and specific recommendations are fairly complex, spanning financial, technical and policy implementation matters, we hope the Board understands that this is not a topic on which there is a unified community consensus. We believe that, as each constituency and stakeholder group's comments are received, it will be possible to see where there is consensus and/or support, and where there is disagreement. << In particular we are confident that a common view can be achieved on the fee reduction which we see essential for needy applicants who qualify, thereby ensuring benefits from the new gTLD program are open to all parts of the community. >> In addition, we hope that more specific implementation issues and suggestions may emerge from these comments. We are pleased that the Board has demonstrated a continuing and serious interest in the work of the JAS WG, and wish to inform you that the Council and GNSO community stands ready to assist the Board in coming to implementable decisions regarding this very important issue. Yours sincerely, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair

4 3

Informal conversation
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane

1 0

Action items from the wrap-up
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

Councillors, Please see attached the notes on action items that I took during today's wrap-up session. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

GNSO presentation to Board
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

Councillors, FYI, please find attached the presentation I will be making to the Board tomorrow morning. Stéphane

1 0

Wrap-up topics
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

Councillors, As you know, our ICANN meeting wrap-up sessions do not have a set agenda, as they are discussions and stock-taking sessions. As pointers to those discussions, here are a few topics we might like to consider. These are just suggestions stemming from the notes I have been taking throughout the week. We don't have to discuss them all during the wrap-up, and we can obviously add or delete topics as desired. See you all in Salon Vert room from 12:30 to 2pm today. Stéphane IOC Red Cross, working with the GAC A letter has been drafted, to be sent by GNSO Council Chair to GAC Chair. Edits/comments? Should we send? Best practices Where to next? What does the Council want to do now? JAS Final report What do we want to do now? We reserved our right to approve it in the resolution we passed and we heard from Kurt on Sunday that Staff would now like some direction from the GNSO Council on whether we approve it or not. NCA Discussion of possible interactions between the Council and the NomCom going forward (see notes from meeting between NomCom and GNSO leadership earlier this week). Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting See response from SSAC Chair Patrik Faltstrom sent to Council list this week. Next steps for the Council? ccNSO Suggestions from the ccNSO to have work sessions together on looking at the strategic plan. Our response? A suggestion that the GNSO joins the ccNSO in requesting extra detail from the CFO on the budget. Meetings: how do we strengthen our meetings with the ccNSO? How do we build the agenda in an effective way? The ccNSO has dedicated 2 people to looking at the agenda. The suggestion is that the GNSO agenda person liaise with them. Post newgTLD landscape Should the GNSO Council be looking at how the community will change as a result of new gTLDs and VI and ccNSO registries providing new gTLD services and vice-versa? Costa Rica preparation Who will handle the agenda? Open Council meeting: Presentations by SG and C chairs at the start of the open council meeting. A suggestion to post a list of topics to the constituency list prior to the Open Council meeting so that the group leaders know what they are going to discuss… GNSO teleconference schedule for the upcoming year Secretariat to suggest a schedule, to be approved by Leadership team.

5 5

Fwd: Some questions in relation to the IOC and Red Cross protection mechanism
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 27, 2011

Oct. 27, 2011

Thanks Heather, copying the Council and passing along the document as requested. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > Objet : Some questions in relation to the IOC and Red Cross protection mechanism > Date : 27 octobre 2011 09:57:07 UTC+00:00 > À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > Dear Stephane, > > Following the exchange of the GNSO and GAC on Sunday, please find attached some questions prepared by colleagues in the GAC. Could you provide to the GNSO Council? > > Hope you will find this useful. > Best, > Heather Dryden > > > > >

1 0

Re: AW: [council] RE: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

Unfortunately the folks handing them out require to see you badge to get your name. So will require staff action... At 26/10/2011 01:12 PM, KnobenW(a)telekom.de wrote: >could be a good action by incoming councillors.... > > >Wolf-Ulrich > > >---------- >Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Oktober 2011 19:00 >An: Glen de Saint Géry >Cc: Council GNSO >Betreff: Re: [council] RE: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree > >Thanks Glen, > >Any chance someone could get enough tickets for all the Council members now? > >Obviously, it will be hard for the Councillors to do so themselves > >Stéphane > > > >Le 26 oct. 2011 à 16:56, Adrian Kinderis a écrit : > >>I love that this is posted now. >>So very very ICANN.... >>Thanks Glen! Appreciate you looking out for us. >>Adrian Kinderis >> >>From: >><mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org>owner-ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org >>[mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry >>Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2011 4:53 PM >>To: <mailto:mail=ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org>mail=ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org >>Subject: TR: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree >> >> >>Dear All, >> >>This is note that is circulating and I have >>asked the Meeting team if they can >>suggest a way for the Councillors to get tickets. >>Thank you. >> >>Glen >> >>Please note that GALA Tickets will be required >>to enter this evening (GALA by the Meridien >>pool).Your badge will NOT give you access. >> >>IF you DO NOT have a ticket, and you are in the >>Conference centre, please go to the Promo stand >>NOW (between the entrance and the registration) to fetch a ticket. >> >>If you do NOT have a ticket, we have a very LIMITED number of tickets. >> >>Thank you >> >>***************** >> >>Vous devez absolument avoir un TICKET pour le >>GALA ce soir a 19h30 au bord de la piscine du >>Meridien. Votre badge ne vous donnera PAS access. >> >>Si vous n'avez pas de ticket, merci de vous >>presenter au stand Promo dans le hall d'entrée >>du Centre des Conferences DES QUE POSSIBLE. >> >>Nous avons un nombre TRES LIMITE de tickets pour ceux qui n'en auront pas. >> >>Merci >> >>Regards, >>Glen de Saint Géry >>GNSO Secretariat >><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >>http://gnso.icann.org >> >>

5 5

RE: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree
by Adrian Kinderis Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

I love that this is posted now. So very very ICANN.... Thanks Glen! Appreciate you looking out for us. 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: Wednesday, 26 October 2011 4:53 PM To: mail=ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: TR: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree Dear All, This is note that is circulating and I have asked the Meeting team if they can suggest a way for the Councillors to get tickets. Thank you. Glen Please note that GALA Tickets will be required to enter this evening (GALA by the Meridien pool). Your badge will NOT give you access. IF you DO NOT have a ticket, and you are in the Conference centre, please go to the Promo stand NOW (between the entrance and the registration) to fetch a ticket. If you do NOT have a ticket, we have a very LIMITED number of tickets. Thank you ***************** Vous devez absolument avoir un TICKET pour le GALA ce soir a 19h30 au bord de la piscine du Meridien. Votre badge ne vous donnera PAS access. Si vous n'avez pas de ticket, merci de vous presenter au stand Promo dans le hall d'entrée du Centre des Conferences DES QUE POSSIBLE. Nous avons un nombre TRES LIMITE de tickets pour ceux qui n'en auront pas. Merci Regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

RE: AW: [council] Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

Instead of getting into another round of potentally non-productive dicussions about this motion, given the recent RrSG announcement, can we simply agree to withdraw it and let us move on and just le us get the work done? I do not want to see anything potentially derail it at this point. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> Date: Wed, October 26, 2011 9:42 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Colleagues, In light of our interest in proceeding quickly to amend the RAA, I propose an amendment to streamline process B and preserve important opportunities for transparency and public comment. Further, as the NCUC does not support many of the identified "high-priority items," I have removed their endorsement from the resolveds. Below I include an updated version of the resolveds my amendment would create and a redline of the whole against the original motion. Thanks, --Wendy RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. A 60-day public comment period shall be open from Monday 31 October, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to give feedback on the topics described in the Final Report, including the opportunity to raise considerations and concerns arising since the Report was issued. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation at the ICANN public meeting in Costa Rica, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to give further feedback, including feedback based on comments received during the public comment period, so as to inform the negotiations between ICANN staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group as a whole (the "Negotiating Group"). 3. Within sixty (60) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, bimonthly written reports on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. Each bimonthly report shall identify the status of (a) topics identified in Step 2 and that were not determined to require consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee; and shall identify such topics, if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"). 5. The Negotiating Group shall review public comments received and continue negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than March 4, 2013. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. REDLINE against the current motion at <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+…> >Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; >> >Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; >> >Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; >> >Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; >> >Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; >> >Whereas, a previous GNSO Council motion to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass at the GNSO Council's April 7, 2011 meeting; >> >Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve a further amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA [[REMOVE with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.]] >> >NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: >> >RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA [[REMOVE with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.]] >As amended herein, Process B entails: [[REPLACE steps 1 and 2 with 1. A 60-day public comment period shall be open from Monday 31 October, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to give feedback on the topics described in the Final Report, including the opportunity to raise considerations and concerns arising since the Report was issued. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation at the ICANN public meeting in Costa Rica, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to give further feedback, including feedback based on comments received during the public comment period, so as to inform the negotiations between ICANN staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group as a whole (the "Negotiating Group"). ]] >3. Within sixty (60) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). >> >4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, bimonthly written reports on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. Each bimonthly report shall identify the status of (a) topics identified in [[REPLACE with Step 2] > and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy > development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder > Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee; and shall identify such > topics, if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group > (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"). >> >5. The Negotiating Group shall review public comments received and continue negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than March 4, 2013. >> >6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. >> >7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. >> >8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. >> >9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. >> >RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

2 1

Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

Colleagues, In light of our interest in proceeding quickly to amend the RAA, I propose an amendment to streamline process B and preserve important opportunities for transparency and public comment. Further, as the NCUC does not support many of the identified "high-priority items," I have removed their endorsement from the resolveds. Below I include an updated version of the resolveds my amendment would create and a redline of the whole against the original motion. Thanks, --Wendy RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. A 60-day public comment period shall be open from Monday 31 October, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to give feedback on the topics described in the Final Report, including the opportunity to raise considerations and concerns arising since the Report was issued. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation at the ICANN public meeting in Costa Rica, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to give further feedback, including feedback based on comments received during the public comment period, so as to inform the negotiations between ICANN staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group as a whole (the "Negotiating Group"). 3. Within sixty (60) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, bimonthly written reports on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. Each bimonthly report shall identify the status of (a) topics identified in Step 2 and that were not determined to require consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee; and shall identify such topics, if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"). 5. The Negotiating Group shall review public comments received and continue negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than March 4, 2013. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. REDLINE against the current motion at <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+…> >Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; >> >Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; >> >Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; >> >Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; >> >Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; >> >Whereas, a previous GNSO Council motion to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass at the GNSO Council's April 7, 2011 meeting; >> >Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve a further amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA [[REMOVE with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.]] >> >NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: >> >RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA [[REMOVE with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.]] >As amended herein, Process B entails: [[REPLACE steps 1 and 2 with 1. A 60-day public comment period shall be open from Monday 31 October, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to give feedback on the topics described in the Final Report, including the opportunity to raise considerations and concerns arising since the Report was issued. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation at the ICANN public meeting in Costa Rica, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to give further feedback, including feedback based on comments received during the public comment period, so as to inform the negotiations between ICANN staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group as a whole (the "Negotiating Group"). ]] >3. Within sixty (60) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). >> >4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, bimonthly written reports on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. Each bimonthly report shall identify the status of (a) topics identified in [[REPLACE with Step 2] > and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy > development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder > Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee; and shall identify such > topics, if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group > (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"). >> >5. The Negotiating Group shall review public comments received and continue negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than March 4, 2013. >> >6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. >> >7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. >> >8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. >> >9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. >> >RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

1 0

TR: update of the SOI
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

FYI Forwarded from De : Rafik Dammak Hi Glen, please find my updated SOI. I am working as computer/software engineer for NTT Communications at cloud services department. I am master degree holder on applied computer science at the Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, at the University of Tokyo, with focus on Ubiquitous computing, wireless sensor network and embedded systems. I hold a degree in Computer Engineering. I worked before as Software engineer at STMicroelectronics. I am also a DiploFoundation alumni after completion of the Internet Governance Capacity Building program. I participated in the online WIPO course on Intellectual Property. I have joined Creative Commons Tunisian license project as Public co-leader. I am involved in the youth participation at Internet Governance and in the organization of youth workshops and attended as a youth representative. I am member of the remote participation on IGF working group. I have been involved in ICANN community as NCUC individual user member. I am also an ISOC global member. I attended IGF Rio de Janeiro and Hyderabad. I participated at the first Summer School on Internet Governance held in Meissen Germany. I have no financial interests in anything related to ICANN and the GNSO. and I am not representing my employer . Rafik Dammak Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council agenda 26 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

Dear All, Please find the agenda for the GNSO Council Public meeting Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 14:00 UTC http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26oct11-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+October+2… Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Dakar 26 October 2011. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 14:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Publi…> Coordinated Universal Time: 14:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Dakar, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, 23:00 Tokyo) Thursday 27 October 01:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who will be absent. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Refer to: http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26967 14:00- 15:00 GNSO Council Public Forum. Presentations by Stakeholder and Constituency Group Leaders. * Registries Stakeholder Group - David Maher * Registrars Stakeholder Group - Mason Cole * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Konstantinos Komaitis · Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC). – Debbie Hughes * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Marilyn Cade * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) – Paul McGrady * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes Break 15:20 Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statements of interest * Kristina Rosette * Rafik Dammak 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 6 October 2011 minutes –approved on 24 October 2011<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-06oct11-en.htm>. Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (10 minutes) - Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. - Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 6(10 – PEDNR, PDP-WT, OSC, GCOT, CSG removed; IRTP- C added) • Other activities: 10 (9 –Thick Whois added) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 –RAA Removed; RC-IOC added). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2– no change). 2.2 Open microphone Item 3: Open Council Meeting Drafting Team (15 minutes) Following the Singapore meeting, a GNSO Drafting Team (DT) was formed to work on possible enhancements to the format of the GNSO Council's Open Meetings. Today's meeting is the first since the formation of this DT. As an introduction to the meeting, the DT would like to present some of its suggested enhancements and receive feedback on them. 3.1 Update from DT (Adrian Kinderis) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Next steps 3.4 Open microphone Item 4: Amendments to RAA (15 minutes) In its ongoing work on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), and more specifically to identify potential amendments to the RAA, the Council is considering a motion to approve an amended process to develop a new form of RAA termed "Process B". Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+… This motion was deferred from the October 6, 2011 meeting. 4.1 Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote 4.4 Open microphone Item 5: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (15 minutes) - As part of the GNSO improvements, the PPSC's PDP WT has produced a final report on how the GNSO's policy development process should be handled. - Refer to PDP-WT Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf>. The Report has been put out for public comment and is now being presented to the Council for approval. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+… This motion was deferred from the October 6, 2011 meeting. 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote 5.4 Open microphone Item 6: Outreach Task Force Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/otf-draft-charter-18oct11-en.pdf> (15 minutes) Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+… 6.1 Reading of the Motion (Olga Cavalli) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote 6.4 Open microphone Item 7: Cross Community WG Drafting Team (15 minutes) - In order to identify exactly how the GNSO should interact with, or participate in, cross community efforts, a drafting team has been formed and is examining how to best conduct these joint activities. - The GNSO Council approved the team's charter on October 6. Today, the team is delivering its first status report. Link to report http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/presentation-ccwg-update-26oct1… 7.1 Update from DT (Jonathan Robinson) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps 7.4 Open microphone Item 8: Geo regions WG (15 minutes) - The Geo Regions WG is currently drafting its final report and plans to produce it early next year. The GNSO Council will be able to consider the report at that time. A draft document is currently the subject of a public comment forum: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/geo-regions-draft-final-report-30sep…. - This is a discussion item to update the Council on this work, and also to determine if the current Council representatives to the WG are able to continue in this role. The current reps are Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil. Olga will no longer sit on the Council following this Dakar meeting. 8.1 Update from Staff (Rob Hoggarth) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Rep choices 8.4 Open microphone Item 9: ASO update (15 minutes) - This will be an update from the ASO to the GNSO Council on current ASO activities and an opportunity for discussion and questions from both SOs on each others' current activities. 9.1 Update from ASO (Louis Lee) 9.2 Discussion 9.3 Open microphone Item 10: Discussion of Final Issue Report on a Possible PDP on the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) (15 minutes) - The GNSO Council discussed the final Issue Report on the UDRP http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf during its weekend working sessions. This is a discussion item about possible next steps in relation to a possible PDP on the UDRP. 10.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next steps 10.4 Open microphone Item 11: Thanks to outgoing Councilors Item 12. Any Other Business (5 minutes) BREAK 18:00 - 18:30 New Council convenes Item 1. Seating of the New Council 1.1 Roll call 1.2 Statements of interest Item 2 Vote for GNSO Council chair One nomination was received for this position, Stéphane van Gelder. The GNSO Council held a question & answer session over the weekend with Mr. van Gelder. Vote by show of hands Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 07:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dakar, Senegal UTC 14:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 15:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 19:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 23:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Please let me know if you have any questions Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#69]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mardi 25 octobre 2011 09:23 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#69] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, October 25, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Interim NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Joy Liddicoat is unable to attend the Convening of the New Council in the GNSO Council Public meeting on Wednesday 26 October 2011 either in person or remotely due to other obligations. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * The election of the new GNSO Chair and any other motions that may be presented once the New Council is convened. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, October 27, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Mary Wong

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#68]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mardi 25 octobre 2011 09:21 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#68] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, October 25, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Interim NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Wolfgang Kleinwäcther is unable to attend the Convening of the New Council" in the GNSO Council Public meeting on Wednesday 26 October 2011 either in person or remotely due to other obligations. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * The election of the new GNSO Chair and any other motions that may be presented once the New Council is convened. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, October 27, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Wendy Seltzer

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#68]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mardi 25 octobre 2011 09:21 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#68] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, October 25, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Interim NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Wolfgang Kleinwäcther is unable to attend the Convening of the New Council" in the GNSO Council Public meeting on Wednesday 26 October 2011 either in person or remotely due to other obligations. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * The election of the new GNSO Chair and any other motions that may be presented once the New Council is convened. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, October 27, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Wendy Seltzer

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 25, 2011

Oct. 25, 2011

Stephane, Add "IOC" back into the first paragraph and I am good to go! Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Tue, October 25, 2011 11:29 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> New draft. One further edit. Stéphane Le 25 oct. 2011 à 17:50, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : > Thanks John, > > Here's a draft with this latest edit. > > Does the Council approve this draft? > > Stéphane > > <GAC GNSO Message v0.2.docx> > Le 25 oct. 2011 à 10:53, <john(a)crediblecontext.com> a écrit : > >> >> Stephane, >> >> I am good with the letter, but note that the second paragraph is >> grammatically challenged. I have restated it as: >> >> As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding >> of the proposal. >> >> The Proposal,at the top-level, places 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 permanent, not >> just for the initial new gTLD round. This implies that the names may not >> be used as gTLDs, even at the request of the designated trade-mark >> owners. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Berard >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: >> IOC/Red Cross Names >> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >> Date: Tue, October 25, 2011 3:15 am >> To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> Thanks to Jeff for starting us off on this, and to all those who >> proposed edits. >> >> I have tried to group these together in the attached document. I have >> only included actual edits, not suggestions, as I did not want to put >> words in other people's mouths. >> >> Please review/comment as required. >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> Le 24 oct. 2011 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : >> >>> Some additional suggested changes (the attached incorporates Tim's suggestions.) >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz >>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:13 AM >>> To: john(a)crediblecontext.com >>> Cc: GNSO Council; Neuman,Jeff >>> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names >>> >>> >>> Agree with John's edits with a couple of suggestons: >>> >>> In the second paragraph, first sentence would read better as: >>> As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding >>> of your proposal. >>> >>> In the third paragraph perhaps instead of asking how it affects existing >>> registrations, we make it statement that, as we understand it, there >>> would be no impact on existing registrations. >>> >>> Not married to either edit, just suggestions. >>> >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: >>> IOC/Red Cross Names >>> From: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> >>> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 7:26 am >>> To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >>> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> <GAC letter.doc> >> >> >

1 0

Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by Rosemary Sinclair Oct. 25, 2011

Oct. 25, 2011

Yes Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Director, External Relations Australian School of Business UNSW +61 413 734490 On 26/10/2011, at 5:35 AM, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: > New draft. One further edit. > > Stéphane > > <GAC GNSO Message v0.3.docx> > > Le 25 oct. 2011 à 17:50, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : > >> Thanks John, >> >> Here's a draft with this latest edit. >> >> Does the Council approve this draft? >> >> Stéphane >> >> <GAC GNSO Message v0.2.docx> >> Le 25 oct. 2011 à 10:53, <john(a)crediblecontext.com> a écrit : >> >>> > >>> Stephane, >>> >>> I am good with the letter, but note that the second paragraph is >>> grammatically challenged. I have restated it as: >>> >>> As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding >>> of the proposal. >>> >>> The Proposal,at the top-level, places 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 permanent, not >>> just for the initial new gTLD round. This implies that the names may not >>> be used as gTLDs, even at the request of the designated trade-mark >>> owners. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Berard >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: >>> IOC/Red Cross Names >>> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >>> Date: Tue, October 25, 2011 3:15 am >>> To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> >>> Thanks to Jeff for starting us off on this, and to all those who >>> proposed edits. >>> >>> I have tried to group these together in the attached document. I have >>> only included actual edits, not suggestions, as I did not want to put >>> words in other people's mouths. >>> >>> Please review/comment as required. >>> >>> Stéphane >>> >>> >>> Le 24 oct. 2011 à 15:40, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : >>> >>>> Some additional suggested changes (the attached incorporates Tim's suggestions.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz >>>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:13 AM >>>> To: john(a)crediblecontext.com >>>> Cc: GNSO Council; Neuman,Jeff >>>> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names >>>> >>>> >>>> Agree with John's edits with a couple of suggestons: >>>> >>>> In the second paragraph, first sentence would read better as: >>>> As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding >>>> of your proposal. >>>> >>>> In the third paragraph perhaps instead of asking how it affects existing >>>> registrations, we make it statement that, as we understand it, there >>>> would be no impact on existing registrations. >>>> >>>> Not married to either edit, just suggestions. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: >>>> IOC/Red Cross Names >>>> From: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> >>>> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 7:26 am >>>> To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >>>> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> <GAC letter.doc> >>> >>> >> >

1 0

meeting with NomCom
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 25, 2011

Oct. 25, 2011

Councillors, At the NomCom's request, a meeting was called with them on Monday. I wanted to pass on my notes from the meeting to ensure the Council was aware of it. Attendees were: Adam Peake: previous NomCom Chair (from Friday) appointed by the Board Vanda Scartezini: New NomCom Chair (from Friday) SSAC rep Rob Hall: Chair NomCom elect (from Friday) Registrar rep Mary Jeff SVG Rob: Intro. We would like to know what you want, and don't want, in an NCA. SVG: Intro. This meeting planned at last minute at the NomCom's initiative. Council not aware. Leadership team cannot speak for Council and cannot be telling the NomCom in this kind of a meeting what the Council wants and doesn't want. My expectations for this meeting were that we would not be speaking about this, but only about the current assignment situation. Mary and Jeff: In agreement. Rob: Understood. We could sit in your Open meeting on Wednesday and talk to the Council if you want and ask this question. This year, for the first time, we have to have opinions. We are required to by the bylaws and we have to report on how we have come to our decisions. So please go back to the Council if you think you need to, but be aware that we need some feedback soon. Adam: Process so far has been for informal discussions with the GNSO. Now discussions need to be more formal. Rob: The GNSO can also provide input on the other positions the NomCom assigns, like the Board. Not just the GNSO positions. Rob: Process for NomCom assignments. We pick 2 people one year, and 1 person the next year. But every year we decide how to assign all three. SVG: So why didn't you assign 3 people this year? Adam: Yes, we should probably have assigned Carlos on the note we sent you, but of course we considered that assignment to be implicit in the letter we sent you as the other 2 NCAs were assigned. Don't forget that this was an emergency situation and we had to reconvene the old NomCom to decide this. Adam: The NomCom is an independent committee under the bylaws and we operate under strict privacy laws. Follows discussion on how the past NCAs have worked and what the history of past NCAs is, the NomCom wanting to get feedback on their previous assignments to get a better idea of how they should act going forward. Rob: In the selection process, right now we have a generic questionnaire. I would like to see us have an additional questionnaire as well which would be more specifically for the group that we're assigning the candidate to. Stéphane

2 1

Regarding policies on Conflicts of interest and code of conduct
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 25, 2011

Oct. 25, 2011

Hello All, (1) There is a session on conflicts at this meeting on Thursday from 2pm to 3:30pm in the tent outside. (2) The Board has a conflicts policy at: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-30jul09-en.htm (3) The Board also has a code of conduct at: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/bod-code-of-conduct- 21apr11-en.htm It includes this statement: "A. General Statement of Expectation Each Director and Liaison ("Board member") is expected to adhere to a high standard of ethical conduct and to act in accordance with ICANN's Mission and Core Values. The good name of ICANN depends upon the way Board members and staff members conduct business and the way the public perceives that conduct. Unethical actions, or the appearance of unethical actions, are not acceptable. Board members are to be guided by the following principles in carrying out their responsibilities. Note, however, that this Code summarizes such principles and nothing in this Code should be considered as limiting duties, obligations or legal requirements with which the Board members must comply." (4) The Board also has some guidelines with respect to confidentiality at: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/bod-code-of-conduct- guidelines-21apr11-en.htm We are reviewing these policies with external advice, but want to be clear that we do have policies in place, and we do take training on the application of these policies seriously. Any changes to policies will be subject to public review and input. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 25, 2011

Oct. 25, 2011

Agree with John's edits with a couple of suggestons: In the second paragraph, first sentence would read better as: As a first step, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding of your proposal. In the third paragraph perhaps instead of asking how it affects existing registrations, we make it statement that, as we understand it, there would be no impact on existing registrations. Not married to either edit, just suggestions. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names From: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 7:26 am To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Cc: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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.

3 2

Council Update - timing l- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice WG
by Rosemary Sinclair Oct. 25, 2011

Oct. 25, 2011

Hi Stephane I would like to provide an update to Council on this work (Pending Projects) ....but timetable is horrible from here (2-6.30 pm Dakar time is 1 am-5.30am Sydney time) I wonder if I could ask that the update come towards the end of GNSO Council meeting I will be asking for a NCSG proxy for the earlier part of the meeting Cheers Rosemary ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org] on behalf of Stéphane Van Gelder [stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com] Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 4:50 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Council Subject: [council] Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice WG Councillors, The CCTC has appointed Rosemary Sinclair as its Chair. Congratulations Rosemary and thanks for your willingness to do this. As Rosemary is stepping down from the Council on Wednesday, we have to consider the issue of Council Liaison to this group. I understand that there are volunteers willing to take this role on. If that is the case, could those people please make themselves known. Finally, please note that a workshop is scheduled on this topic on Thursday from 7 to 8:30 am. Please refer to our schedule if you would like to attend this. Also, the WG has requested that I advise the GAC of its charter. Please let me know if there is opposition to me doing that, as Chair. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair(a)unsw.edu.au<mailto:rosemary.sinclair@unsw.edu.au>> Objet : Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice WG Date : 19 octobre 2011 01:46:25 HAEC À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Cc : Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Hi Stephane This email covers a few issues to do with the CCI WG: The Group has appointed me to the role of Chair (2.1.4.2 GNSO WG Guidelines) and I am happy to continue this work. This will need to be confirmed by GNSO Council. Could this be included in the update on the CCI WG for the next Council or do I need handle this another way? The Group has asked me to ask you about the GNSO Liaison role after I step down from Council. I am not sure how you wish to progress this but our group has had indications of people willing to undertake this role if that is helpful. The WG also asks that you advise the GAC of our Charter. CcNSO liason has let ccNSO know of developments and ALAC will discuss the issues in Dakar. Even though we are not a cross-community WG we are keen to be as inclusive as possible. The WG has scheduled a workshop on 27 October from 7am to 8.30am. This is after GNSO Council public meeting so we will not be able to update GNSO Council with the latest progress but I will make our Workshop Discussion slide pack available by way of update for Council. If there is anything else I can let you know about please just advise me. Enjoy Dakar! Cheers for now Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Director, External Relations Australian School of Business UNSW +61 413734490(mobile) On 18/10/2011, at 5:28 AM, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> wrote: Councillors, FYI, see below the message I have just sent Patrik Faltstrom, Chair of SSAC, following one of the RAP resolves the Council approved at its last teleconference. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Stéphane Van Gelder <<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Objet : Cross TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting Date : 17 octobre 2011 20:23:47 HAEC À : Patrik Fältström <<mailto:pfaltstr@cisco.com>pfaltstr(a)cisco.com<mailto:pfaltstr@cisco.com>> Hi Patrik, At its meeting on 6 October, in follow up to the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group, the GNSO Council tasked me as Chair, with regards to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, to communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse'. For your information, you will find attached to this message the findings of the RAP Working Group in relation to these issues. Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to discussing this with you in Dakar if required. Best, Stéphane <Cross TLD Registration Scam - Domain Kiting - 10 October 2011.doc>

2 1

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 6 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 25, 2011

Oct. 25, 2011

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 6 October 2011. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved on 24 October 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 1

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#67]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 25, 2011

Oct. 25, 2011

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : lundi 24 octobre 2011 19:11 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#67] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Monday, October 24, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Interim chair, NCSG Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Rosemary is only available for part of the time during the Wednesday 26 Oct 2011 meeting. While she plans to make the report at the beginning of the meeting at 1400 UTC she will have to leave the call and asks for a Proxy from that point on, unless she can get back before the end of Part 1 of the GNSO meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * During the time that Rosemary is unavailable for the Wednesday 26 Oct 2011 meeting, any and all votes. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, October 27, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Wendy Seltzer

1 0

RE: [council] NCA assignments
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

Right John. But I don't see any reason why the NomCom could not take requests/concerns from Council, the NCAs (new or existing), or otherwise review the situation if they wanted to. In fact, to properly assess new appointee assignments I would think such information/requests might be valuable. The point is, it would at least leave the door open for consideration. Best, Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] NCA assignments From: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 10:05 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, "rob(a)momentous.com" <rob(a)momentous.com>, "vanda(a)uol.com.br" <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Joette Youkhanna <joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org> Just a note on this discussion. Each Nominating Committee is a newly formed entity and has continually evolving membership. Currently the Nominating Committee is only seeking and assessing new candidates for appointments, but this would require that each Nominating Committee perform a different function. As each Nominating Committee reforms, it would have the impact of having each Nominating Committee re-learn (or maybe even assess) the previous Nominating Committees appointments to effectively assign them. John Jeffrey General Counsel & Secretary ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA USA 90292 direct dial - +1.310.301.5834 mobile - +1.310.404.6001 JJ(a)ICANN.org On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: My understanding from the NomCom is that they appoint 1 NCA one year and 2 NCAs the following year, but that they will provide 3 assignments every single year. Stéphane Le 24 oct. 2011 à 16:04, Tim Ruiz a écrit : Personally, I think the NomCom should review the House assignments every year instead of assigning an NCA to one House for two years, or an NCA to non-voting for two years. That would allow changes to be made if/when it is deemed appropriate. I don't think the bylaws preclude that. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] NCA assignments From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 8:50 am To: <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, <samantha.eisner(a)icann.org>, <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, <rob(a)momentous.com>, <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, <joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org> Stephane, my answers to you in red below. thanks to ask me Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA 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 Subject: Re: [council] NCA assignments From: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:21:45 +0200 CC: tim(a)godaddy.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org; john.jeffrey(a)icann.org; ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp; samantha.eisner(a)icann.org; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; daniel.halloran(a)icann.org; liz.gasster(a)icann.org; rob(a)momentous.com; vanda(a)uol.com.br; olof.nordling(a)icann.org; joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com Carlos, I don't understand the points you are making this is the first point in aparent no coincidence, I will try my best to achieve you understanding. Is this something that we can discuss at some point I believe yes and highligted below , perhaps in the wrap-up at the end of the week sounds good for me, or privately if you prefer and then with your permission I could update the Council? thanks for ask, I think this point concern more people than us. I am not saying that your points are wrong , just that I would like to get more clarity on exactly what it is your are saying went wrong. My understanding so far: - The bylaws say that the NomCom shall make the appointments. True. bylaws are very clear on this point. another true is: we have this rules are mandatory (after bylaws reviewed) since late 2010. - JJ's note confirms this. Yes, but After that I asked his intervention on this issue. Before that, the rule was not considered by NomCom nor GNSO - The bylaws do not say that a rotation should be introduced. True. but in this case is needed an interpretation, wich was given in a JJ`s note at the last part ".... it is important for the NomCom to complete the assignment process and identify the roles of the NCAs to the GNSO..... 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. "- JJ's second note confirms this ("There is no requirement for rotation of the NomCom appointees among the three seats.") In this case is (IMHO) a contradiction in relation with his first note and the paragraph copied up. the first one have a complete sense to me. perhaps, one question would be good at this moment: What sense have, to have sit one person two years, without have the possibility to vote his own motion ?. Or if you consider this have sense, please clarify to me what is the sense in your understanding?, and in this last case: Why always GNSO rotate (till now) the NCA`s ? - The NomCom has made its assignments. True. But have no in account what Is said at the underlined paragraph up to this. What I don't understand is where the gap in the process that you mention is? Te gap is/was GNSO forget or not know, the fact that there are another NCA`s in GNSO before appoint the two new, and the point highlighted "Due to the NomCom appointment rotation" of JJ`s original note. Thanks for any help you can give me in understanding that. I hope my comments in red, help you to clarify my point of view on this issue Stéphane Le 24 oct. 2011 à 11:43, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit : Thanks Tim for your comment. I understand very well, the idea to remain this discussion open is not for me only, and particularly, I know How many contributions I can do from my current position, this is one of this. I saw a serious gap in the procedure, because bylaws were saying different things. In this order I ask for the advice of General Councel. The advice was made, but the application in the reality IMHO was bad done. The application of the advice given by JJ not give a permanent solution, or give a bad solution at least for some interests. May be is needed a deep discussion to get a common understanding , for all grups and people involved, to determine and clarify waht will be the procedure in the future. I particular consider " the differences disappear talking", and is what I am promoting, because I feel in this case we have have not a enough comunication to solve this properly, some people and constituencies were not contacted, and their opinion must be hear (in relation with the aplication of advice given by JJ), just because their interests count also. The advice of General Councel was in this way, specially the last paragraph, but only some parts were contacted to reach a general consensus. Thanks again Tim, and want to say that more than a problem is a possibility to have a permanent solution for this issue, and in perfect agreement with bylaws and the authorized interpretation given by JJ, and the understanding of the parts interested on this. Also and finally (at least for now) I want to say: This situation was not caused by me, The situation have another origin, and you know that. Thanks again. And I am sure you and me are following the same, a good, agreed and permanent solution on this issue and in strict relation with ICANN bylaws Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA 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

1 0

RE: [council] NCA assignments
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

Personally, I think the NomCom should review the House assignments every year instead of assigning an NCA to one House for two years, or an NCA to non-voting for two years. That would allow changes to be made if/when it is deemed appropriate. I don't think the bylaws preclude that. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] NCA assignments From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 8:50 am To: <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, <samantha.eisner(a)icann.org>, <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, <rob(a)momentous.com>, <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, <joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org> Stephane, my answers to you in red below. thanks to ask me Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA 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 Subject: Re: [council] NCA assignments From: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:21:45 +0200 CC: tim(a)godaddy.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org; john.jeffrey(a)icann.org; ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp; samantha.eisner(a)icann.org; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; daniel.halloran(a)icann.org; liz.gasster(a)icann.org; rob(a)momentous.com; vanda(a)uol.com.br; olof.nordling(a)icann.org; joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com Carlos, I don't understand the points you are making this is the first point in aparent no coincidence, I will try my best to achieve you understanding. Is this something that we can discuss at some point I believe yes and highligted below , perhaps in the wrap-up at the end of the week sounds good for me, or privately if you prefer and then with your permission I could update the Council? thanks for ask, I think this point concern more people than us. I am not saying that your points are wrong , just that I would like to get more clarity on exactly what it is your are saying went wrong. My understanding so far: - The bylaws say that the NomCom shall make the appointments. True. bylaws are very clear on this point. another true is: we have this rules are mandatory (after bylaws reviewed) since late 2010. - JJ's note confirms this. Yes, but After that I asked his intervention on this issue. Before that, the rule was not considered by NomCom nor GNSO - The bylaws do not say that a rotation should be introduced. True. but in this case is needed an interpretation, wich was given in a JJ`s note at the last part ".... it is important for the NomCom to complete the assignment process and identify the roles of the NCAs to the GNSO..... 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. "- JJ's second note confirms this ("There is no requirement for rotation of the NomCom appointees among the three seats.") In this case is (IMHO) a contradiction in relation with his first note and the paragraph copied up. the first one have a complete sense to me. perhaps, one question would be good at this moment: What sense have, to have sit one person two years, without have the possibility to vote his own motion ?. Or if you consider this have sense, please clarify to me what is the sense in your understanding?, and in this last case: Why always GNSO rotate (till now) the NCA`s ? - The NomCom has made its assignments. True. But have no in account what Is said at the underlined paragraph up to this. What I don't understand is where the gap in the process that you mention is? Te gap is/was GNSO forget or not know, the fact that there are another NCA`s in GNSO before appoint the two new, and the point highlighted "Due to the NomCom appointment rotation" of JJ`s original note. Thanks for any help you can give me in understanding that. I hope my comments in red, help you to clarify my point of view on this issue Stéphane Le 24 oct. 2011 à 11:43, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit : Thanks Tim for your comment. I understand very well, the idea to remain this discussion open is not for me only, and particularly, I know How many contributions I can do from my current position, this is one of this. I saw a serious gap in the procedure, because bylaws were saying different things. In this order I ask for the advice of General Councel. The advice was made, but the application in the reality IMHO was bad done. The application of the advice given by JJ not give a permanent solution, or give a bad solution at least for some interests. May be is needed a deep discussion to get a common understanding , for all grups and people involved, to determine and clarify waht will be the procedure in the future. I particular consider " the differences disappear talking", and is what I am promoting, because I feel in this case we have have not a enough comunication to solve this properly, some people and constituencies were not contacted, and their opinion must be hear (in relation with the aplication of advice given by JJ), just because their interests count also. The advice of General Councel was in this way, specially the last paragraph, but only some parts were contacted to reach a general consensus. Thanks again Tim, and want to say that more than a problem is a possibility to have a permanent solution for this issue, and in perfect agreement with bylaws and the authorized interpretation given by JJ, and the understanding of the parts interested on this. Also and finally (at least for now) I want to say: This situation was not caused by me, The situation have another origin, and you know that. Thanks again. And I am sure you and me are following the same, a good, agreed and permanent solution on this issue and in strict relation with ICANN bylaws Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA 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

3 2

NCA assignments
by carlos dionisio aguirre Oct. 24, 2011

Oct. 24, 2011

Thanks Tim for your comment. I understand very well, the idea to remain this discussion open is not for me only, and particularly, I know How many contributions I can do from my current position, this is one of this. I saw a serious gap in the procedure, because bylaws were saying different things. In this order I ask for the advice of General Councel. The advice was made, but the application in the reality IMHO was bad done. The application of the advice given by JJ not give a permanent solution, or give a bad solution at least for some interests. May be is needed a deep discussion to get a common understanding , for all grups and people involved, to determine and clarify waht will be the procedure in the future. I particular consider " the differences disappear talking", and is what I am promoting, because I feel in this case we have have not a enough comunication to solve this properly, some people and constituencies were not contacted, and their opinion must be hear (in relation with the aplication of advice given by JJ), just because their interests count also. The advice of General Councel was in this way, specially the last paragraph, but only some parts were contacted to reach a general consensus. Thanks again Tim, and want to say that more than a problem is a possibility to have a permanent solution for this issue, and in perfect agreement with bylaws and the authorized interpretation given by JJ, and the understanding of the parts interested on this. Also and finally (at least for now) I want to say: This situation was not caused by me, The situation have another origin, and you know that. Thanks again. And I am sure you and me are following the same, a good, agreed and permanent solution on this issue and in strict relation with ICANN bylaws 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

2 2

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