October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Proposed Draft of Note to send to the GAC re: IOC/Red Cross Names
by Rosemary Sinclair 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

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 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

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 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

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 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

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 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

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 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

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 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

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 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

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 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

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 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

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