October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: URGENT - GALA Evening / Soiree
by Adrian Kinderis 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

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 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion
by Tim Ruiz 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

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 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

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 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

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 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

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 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

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 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

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 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

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 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

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