October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Regarding Ethics and conflicts of interest
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 6, 2011

Oct. 6, 2011

Hello All, I have noticed a few newspaper articles and posting on forums like CircleID on how ICNAN is reviewing its policies for Conflicts of Interest and Ethics. I just want to let you know that this is a topic of active discussion on the Board. For example, at the Board Governance Committee meeting on 15 August 2011: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-bgc-15aug11-en.htm " 5.Ethics and Conflicts of Interest - The BGC began a discussion on the issues surrounding Board and staff ethics issues. The BGC discussed that as a private sector organization, ICANN is limited in its ability to place restrictions on future employment, though there are many things that ICANN can do to address these concerns, such as continued strict adherence and enforcement of confidentiality provisions. The BGC noted that the conflicts/ethics discussion has been going on within ICANN prior to the approval of the new gTLD program. The BGC agreed that community discussion should occur in Dakar about this issue. Action: Staff to draft proposed guidelines for Board members and staff members, to provide additional information and guidance through the use of examples, for BGC consideration at its September workshop, in preparation for community discussion in October. " This was topic discussed further in the Board Governance Committee last week on Thursday 15 September (I will post information on the resolutions once they are posted on the Board Governance Committee website), and with the Board as a whole on Saturday 17 September. You will see from the minutes above - that this will be a discussion item in Dakar. So just want to reassure that the concerns raised by members of the GNSO Council in Singapore are being followed up, and there will be more to report in Singapore. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 2

RE: [council] Is there a preliminary GNSO agenda for Dakar yet?
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 5, 2011

Oct. 5, 2011

Thanks! That was what I was looking for. Hadn't seen it come in and I did search for "agenda" instead of "schedule! At 05/10/2011 05:49 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >Yes. Glen sent out the agenda to the Council 5 hours before your >e-mail :) Or are you referring to the agenda for the actual Council >meeting? That will be developed once tomorrow's meeting is over and >we know what issues will be carried over. > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > >The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only >for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain >confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the >intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error >and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this >message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the >original message. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 5:43 PM >To: GNSO Council >Subject: [council] Is there a preliminary GNSO agenda for Dakar yet?

1 0

Is there a preliminary GNSO agenda for Dakar yet?
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 5, 2011

Oct. 5, 2011

3 2

Draft GNSO related meeting schedule for the Dakar meetings
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 5, 2011

Oct. 5, 2011

Dear Council Members, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting tomorrow, attached please find a draft GNSO related meeting schedule for the Dakar meetings. This schedule should be read in conjunction with the full schedule which has been posted at: http://dakar42.icann.org/full-schedule Please review and feel free to share your comments. Thank you very much. Kind regards, On behalf of Jeff Neuman Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#64]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 4, 2011

Oct. 4, 2011

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mardi 4 octobre 2011 21:03 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#64] Name of Officer: * J. Scott Evans Officer Email Address: * jscottevans(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, October 4, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * David Taylor, one of our 2 GNSO representatives will not be able to attend the Dakar meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Dakar GNSO Meeting(s) held prior to seating of newly elected GNSO Councilors 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] * Wednesday, October 26, 2011 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Brian Winterfeldt Temporary Alternate Email Address: * bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>

1 0

RE: [council] Our Chair's quote in Managing Internet IP
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 4, 2011

Oct. 4, 2011

Hopefully the clarification about my comment will help. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Our Chair's quote in Managing Internet IP > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Mon, October 03, 2011 9:43 am > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > A number of people in my world interpreted the motion and intro text to mean it had GAC support. > > As for Stephaneâ��s comments, I hope not. Stephane?Â Unfortunately, however, heâ��s identified in the article as being GNSO Council Chair so people reading the article will likely assume that he was speaking for (or with the endorsement of) the Council. > om: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:20 AM > To: Rosette, Kristina > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Our Chair's quote in Managing Internet IP > > No one ever said the GAC endorsed the RrSG motion. And I doubt highly > that Stephane presented his comments as the view of the Council. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] Our Chair's quote in Managing Internet IP > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > > Date: Mon, October 03, 2011 8:37 am > > To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > "The GNSO's van Gelder concluded that brands must ensure that there is sufficient demand before proceeding with their application.Ã� 'Don't forget the sales channel and the marketing part of the TLD.Ã� You must butter up the registrars,' he said." > > Ã� > > I don't believe I got that memo.Ã� Perhaps it got lost along with the memo to the GAC seeking its endorsement of the RrSG motion . . . > > Ã� > > Ã� > > Ã� > > > > > > > > > >

6 5

UPDATED GNSO Council meeting agenda 6 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

Dear All, Please find the updated agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October 2011 at 15:00 UTC posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+06+October+2… and on the GNSO website at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-06oct11-en.htm Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 6 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 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (08:00 Los Angeles, 11:00 Washington DC, 16:00 London, 17:00 Brussels, Friday 7 October 00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 22 September minutes –approved on October 2011. Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 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: 10 (9 – Open Council Meeting DT added). • Other activities: 9 (9 - no change) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2– no change). Item 3: Whois Survey Drafting Team (10 minutes) A motion is being submitted to approve the formation of a Whois Survey Drafting Team. Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting Refer to motion: 1. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 3.1 Reading of the motion (Wendy Seltzer) 3. 2 Discussion 3. 3 Vote Item 4: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes) At its July 21 meeting, the Council was presented with a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. This motion was discussed at the meeting and should now be considered by Council. It should be noted that the motion made before the Council today has been slightly reworked as compared to the motion shown at the July 21 meeting (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011) Motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity (10 minutes) A motion is being made to recommend action by the ICANN Board with regards to addressing Internet-based criminal activity. Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting Refer to motion: 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 5.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: Amendments to RAA (10 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 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 6.1 Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (10 minutes) As part of the GNSO improvements, the PPSC's PDP WT has produced a final report on how the GNSO's policy develop process should be handled. Refer to PDP-WT Final Report This report has been put out for public comment and is now being presented to the Council for approval. Refer to motion 5 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 7.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Vote Item 8: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b): Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest. The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some guidance: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-dryden-11aug11-en.pdf On September 18, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council providing the following advice on this topic with regard to a possible UDRP<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-udrp-14sep11-en.p…> and the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names.<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11…> During the Council's Sept 22 meeting, the following points were highlighted: • A request to Staff to confer with ICANN General Counsel on the status of the advice that the GNSO receives from the GAC? • This is a proposed topics to discuss with the GAC at the joint GAC- Council meeting in Dakar. • Identify questions or requests for clarification and communicate these to the GAC well in advance of the joint meeting so as to have a meaningful and constructive discussion. 8.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team - Final Charter (CCWG-DT) Cross Community Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf 9.1 Council approval for consideration of the motion submitted to the Council on 29 September 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12100.html Refer to motion 6 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 9.2 Reading of the motion ( Margie Milam) 9.3 Discussion 9.4 Vote Item 10: Review of proposed agenda for Dakar meeting (20 minutes) 10.1 Discussion item on the GNSO's proposed agenda for the Dakar meeting week, including key points and meetings with other stakeholders and groups. 10.1 1 Review of draft agenda (Jeff Neuman) 10.1.2 Discussion 10.1.3 Next steps 10.2 Interaction with ccNSO Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting, deferred from the July 21 meeting: the ccNSO and the GNSO agreed to try and work together more closely on some projects of common interest. Two were discussed: the work the ccNSO is currently doing on ICANN's strategic plan and budget, and the work the GNSO is currently doing on CWGs. This is a discussion item to ascertain how to push these two initiatives forward. 10.2.1 Discussion 10.2.1 Next steps 10.3 Open Council Meeting Drafting Team At its Singapore meeting, the Council decided to review the way its Open Meetings are organized. This is a discussion item to review the work of the team so far and identify any changes that might be made in time for the GNSO Council's next Open Meeting, in Dakar on October 26. 10.3.1 Update (XXX) 10.3.2 Discussion 10.3.3 Next steps Item 11: Best practices discussion paper<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1…> (10 minutes) Following a Council request, Staff has prepared a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices for registrars and registries<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1…>. The best practices are to help address the abusive registrations of domain names. Staff suggests that the Council open a public comment period. A workshop could also be held on this topic during the Dakar ICANN meeting week. 11.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next steps Item 12. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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-operating-procedures-22sep11-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 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 02:00 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 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP
by Margie Milam Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

Dear All, As requested by the GNSO Council, I am pleased to submit for your review and consideration, the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. This Final Report takes into account the many submissions received during the Public Comment Forum on the Preliminary Issue Report, as well as the GAC Statement on the UDRP recently delivered to the GNSO Council. We look forward to further dialogue with the Council regarding the recommendations contained in the Final Issue Report in Dakar. All the Best, Margie _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________

2 2

RE: [council] Our Chair's quote in Managing Internet IP
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

No one ever said the GAC endorsed the RrSG motion. And I doubt highly that Stephane presented his comments as the view of the Council. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Our Chair's quote in Managing Internet IP > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Mon, October 03, 2011 8:37 am > To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > "The GNSO's van Gelder concluded that brands must ensure that there is sufficient demand before proceeding with their application. 'Don't forget the sales channel and the marketing part of the TLD. You must butter up the registrars,' he said." > > I don't believe I got that memo. Perhaps it got lost along with the memo to the GAC seeking its endorsement of the RrSG motion . . . > > > > > > >

2 1

Our Chair's quote in Managing Internet IP
by Rosette, Kristina Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

"The GNSO's van Gelder concluded that brands must ensure that there is sufficient demand before proceeding with their application. 'Don't forget the sales channel and the marketing part of the TLD. You must butter up the registrars,' he said." I don't believe I got that memo. Perhaps it got lost along with the memo to the GAC seeking its endorsement of the RrSG motion . . .

1 0