December 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organisations (IGO's)
by Stéphane Van Gelder Dec. 18, 2011

Dec. 18, 2011

Councillors, In the context of our own discussions at the end of last week's meeting, please see below the message I was copied on last Friday. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : <Nicola.BONUCCI(a)oecd.org> > Objet : Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organisations (IGO's) > Date : 16 décembre 2011 18:00:27 HNEC > À : <rod.beckstrom(a)icann.org>, <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> > Cc : <gac(a)gac.icann.org>, <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, <jeffrey(a)icann.org>, <amy.stathos(a)icann.org>, <Josee.FECTEAU(a)oecd.org>, <Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV(a)oecd.org>, <Jill.SCHUKER(a)oecd.org>, <edward.kwakwa(a)wipo.int>, <bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com>, <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, <ocl(a)gih.com>, <DL1516(a)oecd.org> > > Dear Sirs, > > Several additional International Organizations have signed on to the open letter transmitted to you on 13 December. You will find enclosed the same letter containing an updated list of signatories. > > We take this opportunity to also copy the letter to the GNSO President Stephane Van Gelder and the ALAC Chair Olivier Crepin-Leblond. > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Nicola Bonucci > Director & Accession Coordinator / Directeur et coordonnateur de l’adhésion > Directorate for Legal Affairs / Direction des affaires juridiques > > 2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 > Tel: +33 1 45 24 80 77 – Fax: +33 1 44 30 62 45 > nicola.bonucci(a)oecd.org || www.oecd.org > > Follow us on: > >

1 0

cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting
by Stéphane Van Gelder Dec. 17, 2011

Dec. 17, 2011

Dear Leslie, During its Dec 15, 2011 teleconference, the GNSO Council discussed the issue referenced above. The Council approved that discussion continue on the topic of cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting following the SSAC's response (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-chair-to-faltstrom-10oct1…) with the ccNSO to discuss whether there are any steps that could be taken or considered jointly. The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council had some initial discussions on this topic at its meeting in Dakar and as this is an issue that also affects ccTLDs there might be common approaches to be explored. As noted, such approaches might involve improved communication / education in relation to this issue as it is not clear at this stage that this issue could be addressed through policy development. I am therefore contacting you, as Chair of the ccNSO, to enquire whether there might be some interest in having a joint discussion on this matter. Kind regards, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

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

Dec. 17, 2011

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

1 1

GNSO Council transcript and MP3 posted on website
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2011

Dec. 16, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find the MP3 http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111215-en.mp3 and the transcript of the GNSO Council meeting on 15 December 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-council-15dec11-en.pdf posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec 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

Notice of Publication: Revised IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation Plan
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2011

Dec. 16, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15dec11-en.htm Notice of Publication: Revised IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation Plan 15 December 2011 Following the ICANN Board's approval on 8 December 2011 of the amendment to the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation Plan, ICANN is providing this notice of publication for the Revised Implementation Plan. This amendment was considered following guidance received from the ccNSO during the ICANN meeting in Dakar, Senegal. Two versions are posted: 1) the revised IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation Plan (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan… [PDF, 851 KB]) and 2) a version that tracks the changes from the previous version (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan… [PDF, 902 KB]). The community should take note that the original version of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation Plan is now archived and superseded by the Revised Implementation Plan. Background On 26 October 2011, the ccNSO Council approved a resolution<http://ccnso.icann.org/node/28011> and communicated it in a letter<http://ccnso.icann.org/node/27947> from ccNSO Chair to ICANN Board Chair asking the Board to direct staff to amend the relevant sections of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan. The amendment is to address specific cases when a requested IDN ccTLD string may be confusingly similar with the two-letter ASCII ccTLD corresponding to the same country or territory. This work was developed out of the ccNSO Council Resolution<http://ccnso.icann.org/node/23715> from the ICANN meeting in San Francisco in March 2011. This resolution requested a sub-group of the IDN ccPDP Working Group 1 to develop, as soon as possible, guidelines (within the framework of the existing rules for the Fast Track) to improve the predictability of the evaluation process relating to string confusion as defined in the IDNC WG Final Report and the Final Implementation Plan, as adopted by the ICANN Board in November 2009. ICANN conducted an initial review of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process and its implementation between October 2010 - January 2011. A summary and analysis<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-8-21feb11-en.htm> was published in February and the Board acknowledged the Fast Track review<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-18mar11-en.htm#8> at the ICANN meeting in March 2011. The IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation Plan was approved by the ICANN Board at its meeting in Seoul, Republic of Korea in October 2009. A link to the original Implementation Plan may be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan… [PDF, 498 KB] 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 Resolutions - 15 December 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2011

Dec. 16, 2011

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, the following two resolutions were passed at the Council meeting on 15 December 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/prelim-report-current-state-udrp-27may11-en.pdf) and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf) in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . to allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.” RESOLVED, that the GNSO approves the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first new gTLD. 2. Motion for JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) response to August 2011 Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs WHEREAS, the JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) was formed by mutual charters between the ccNSO and GNSO councils, and extended (ccNSO: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-23aug11-en.pdf | GNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) to complete its work on the 3 identified issues of common interest between the ccNSO and GNSO; WHEREAS, the subject of Single Character IDN TLDs was discussed at the GNSO IDN WG, the GNSO Reserved Names WG and incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD Recommendations, and consistently resulted in community consensus to allow the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs; WHEREAS, the JIG developed and published an Initial Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm) and incorporated the comments (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-initial-report/pdfaul7JXcqaa.pdf) into a draft Final Report (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) for further public comments, WHEREAS, the JIG conducted a public session during the Cartagena ICANN meetings (http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15395) WHEREAS, the JIG incorporated comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-draft-final-report/pdfQxF383O30Q.pdf) and completed a Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns…) which was approved by the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-10may11-en.pdf) and GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) councils; WHEREAS, the ICANN Board made a resolution at their August 25, 2011 meeting regarding the subject: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5; and, WHEREAS, the JIG considered the resolution and found it to be in contradiction with the community consensus on the matter, NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that, upon the mutual resolution from both the GNSO and ccNSO councils on the subject, the Council Chairs would send to the ICANN Board the following letter in response to their August 2011 resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs: JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) Response to ICANN Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs Dear ICANN Board, First of all, we appreciate activity at the ICANN Board regarding Single Character IDN TLDs. In response to the August 2011 resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5) however, we express our disappointment and concern on 3 critical aspects: Both the ccNSO and the GNSO councils have at multiple occasions expressed a consensus principle that the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category. The August 2011 Board resolution (by specifying that “processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.”) perhaps inadvertently conflicted with this community consensus understanding and should be rectified or clarified. The issue of Single Character IDN TLDs have gone through at least 4 rounds of community discussions, including at the GNSO IDN WG (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm) and of course the JIG report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns…) Each time there is consistent consensus support from the community for allowing Single Character IDN TLDs in the new gTLD process (including the first round), and no objections were received from any of the ACs. The August 2011 Board resolution specifying that Single Character IDN TLDs not be included in the first round ignores this repeated community consensus without reasonable rationale. While the August 2011 Board resolution generally requested input from a collection of ACs, there is a lack of progressive direction towards the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs. Furthermore, while input from ACs is always welcome, given the multitude of public comment periods already conducted for the subject, including participation from SSAC members, with consistent consensus response, such consultation with ACs should not become an arbitrary hurdle for the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs, especially for the New gTLD process. Single Character IDN TLDs is not simply a “good to have” feature, but a necessary requirement for some of the IDN communities in order to allow broadly attractive and competitive gTLDs. As an example, for Chinese IDN TLDs, the prohibition of Single Character IDN TLDs would effectively devoid the community of single-syllable-single-word TLDs, which is otherwise acceptable for English and other alphabetic based language TLDs (e.g. “.word” would be an acceptable ASCII single-syllable-single-word TLD, yet a similar single-syllable-single-word TLD “.字” would not be acceptable for Chinese), creating an unjustified situation of inequity, and significantly hindering the adoption of IDN. The JIG, through the ccNSO and GNSO councils therefore sincerely urges the Board to: Implement the community consensus of allowing Single Character IDN TLDs without restricting such implementation to being after the first round of the new gTLD process, and to decouple the requirement that IDN ccTLD or IDN gTLD mechanisms wait for the other; If necessary, form an implementation team to assist staff in immediately implementing Single Character IDN TLDs for scripts and languages where the input of a Single Character requires multiple keystrokes (e.g. ideographical scripts, and avoiding the potential technical concern of keyboard layouts identified in the JIG report), and for the team to further guide implementation for other scripts as well as coordinate input from the ACs; and, Update or amend the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook for such implementation before the application period for the first round is over. The JIG and the significantly affected language communities are prepared to support ICANN staff and Board in the swift implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs without compromising the security and stability of the Internet. The JIG further believes that minor adjustments to the Applicant Guidebook would suffice and is ready to work with staff closely to complete its implementation. We look forward to the positive response and actions from the Board. Sincerely, ccNSO Council (approval: [LINK]) GNSO Council (approval: [LINK]) JIG -- Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 15 December 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 15 December, 2011 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111215-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [council] Question.
by carlos dionisio aguirre Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

Stephane. if you want we can let sleeping dogs, but the inaction dont modify the errors, nor eliminate the responsabilities for something doing bad. In relation with times to say or object something , our OR&P at point of order clause (because my claim is a kind of point of order), also establish (...must be raised as soon as possible..) that: 3.6.1 Points of Order At a physical meeting, a GNSO Council member may raise a hand or, during a teleconference, a GNSO Council member may speak over the dialogue and say immediately "point of order." A point of order is raised when there is an infraction of the GNSO Operating Procedures or GNSO Operating Procedures, Version 2.3 Page 10 improper decorum in speaking. The point of order must be raised as soon as possible after the error occurs. The Chair will suspend discussion to hear the point. I think we need go back to the OR&P to avoid the possibility to go against rules. I am not claiming against nobody, is no personal, but I cant leave pass this clear situation, where facts go in different way than our OR&P. All of this, in order to build a better GNSO Regards. 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 Subject: Re: [council] Question. From: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:18:00 +0100 CC: council(a)gnso.icann.org; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com Carlos, If you go back on the call transcript, you will see that I did not accept or refuse anything. Thomas had sent his proxy. That fact was read out during roll call. You did not object, nor did anyone else. Not having all the rules in my head at any given time and not hearing any objections, I did not anticipate a possible problem. As to what should be done now, as there were no objections on the call, and no objections since the call until your questions yesterday whilst the call was on November 17 so nearly a full month ago, I am of the mind that no further action should be taken. I would also stress that on this specific issue, the whole Council's attention was drawn to Thomas' proxy by a question from Wolf right after Glen finished the roll call. The question was on a different matter, but it does show that there was plenty of opportunity to voice concerns at the time. None was heard. Moreover, had you voted in Mason's stead, whatever your vote it would have made no difference to motion 1 and no difference to motion 2. Those were the only two motions considered at the meeting (motion 3 was deferred). I would therefore recommend that we let sleeping dogs lie here, and concentrate on today's meeting. Thanks, Stéphane Le 15 déc. 2011 à 14:16, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :Stephane . Thanks for your prompt response, you are very smart and inteligent. But, I consider the issue is not so simple. And with all my respect I allow myself to say the following: The point is not only "Thomas gave his proxy to Mason", the point is that was against the our established OR&P (on my humble point of view), and this is so serious, because on my point of view also, somebody must assume the lack of responsability to approve that conduct, thats the point to have in account. When we have rules, nobody can do what they want. For that was my question: #1 why do you accept..... against the rules? Are you or any councilor or even the council, capable to change our rules, or give authorization to "jump" some rule? Who is responsible for this situation? And this, generate another issue: if there are anybody in the call against what rules say. What happen with the resolution taken in the teleconference? are valids? this is another point to take in consideration, and I personaly consider is no a simple thing. in response to the last paragraph of your answer, I agree with you. On this sense and without intention to disturb the call, I made a comment to Wolf by private chat. Obviously, my idea is help to build a better GNSO. Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALOAbogado - Especialista en Derecho de los NegociosSarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org Subject: Re: [council] Question. From: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:15:39 +0100 CC: council(a)gnso.icann.org To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com Carlos, Thomas gave his proxy to Mason. Perhaps you should enquire with him as to why he did not give it to you, if you feel that was unfair. On the second point, this is my read of the rules. The secretariat (Glen) should feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But to me, your read is wrong. There are 7 councillors (including the NCA) in the CPH. To me, a majority is more than half, so 4. If there is another read to the word majority, I do not see it defined in the rules. One thing seems certain to me however, and that is that majority does not mean the total number of available councillors, as you suggest. The rules also say there must be at least one councillor from each SG. At the very least I was on the call and so was Jeff Neuman. That's one from each SG in the CPH. Finally, a more general point. When you have valid questions of this kind, I feel it would be more helpful to state them during the meeting, so that something can be done immediately. I would appreciate your support, and the support of anyone on the Council, in helping to make the meetings run both smoothly and according to our rules. And because one person can't do everything at once, it is helpful if you spot something that you feel is not within the parameters of those rules, to mention it as constructive criticism while the meeting is in flow. That way, if there really is a problem, it can be remedied at once. Stéphane Le 15 déc. 2011 à 00:17, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :Stephane . First of all I want to apologize by my ignorance if it the case. Second I ask, in order to learn more. I ask the question to whom I consider is the person capable to give me answers. Going directly to the point, I have to say that I have a few doubts in relation with the past teleconference call quorum. My specific doubt is about, differents points: 1- Why did you accept the proxy given by Thomas Rickert to Mason Cole, being Thomas a NCA, and having in account that our OR&P, the specific rule say: 3.8 Absences and Vacancies3.8.4 Remedy: Temporary Alternatea. For a Councilor who is not appointed by the Nominating Committee, the appointingorganization may, at its discretion, name a Temporary Alternate to serve in the absentor vacant Councilor’s seat.b. For a voting NCA, the Council non-voting NCA is immediately activated to serve asa Temporary Alternate subject to provisions in Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate. Thecommunication required pursuant to Section 4.8-Procedures, Paragraph b, if it cannotbe submitted by the voting NCA, will be completed and forwarded by the non-VotingNCA.----------------------- 2- I understand (correct me if Im wrong) The Quorum needed to session in case of CPH is 7 Councilors present, all of this accordingChapter 4.0: Voting 4.1 Quorum In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a vote, a quorum must be present. A quorum is a majority of voting members in each House, which must include at least one member of each Stakeholder Group. In case of the past teleconference call I can see on the transcript record only 6 councilors present & the proxy y (given badly in my point of view) by Thomas to Mason, List of attendees: Contracted Parties House Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao- – absent, apologies, proxy to Jeff Neuman Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert – absent, apologies proxy to Mason Cole Could you explain me what was the procedure to session? ------------------------------------ 3 - In a hypothetical case that proxy was bad given (having in account the rules mentioned), what is the solution for votes in each motion debated on the call? others clauses applicable in my point of view, for this case are: Chapter 4.0: Voting 4.1 Quorum In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a vote, a quorum must be present. A quorum is a majority of voting members in each House, which must include at least one member of each Stakeholder Group........b. Quorum An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate below) if present, would count toward quorum. (4.6 Proxy Voting An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).) BUT c. Proxy Notification A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. 1 The term “appointing organization” (see Section 1.3.1) does not comprise the Nominating Committee; therefore, the Voting Direction remedy does not apply to House NCAs. 1.3 Definitions 1.3.1 An “appointing organization” is defined to be the Stakeholder Group or Constituency that elected or appointed a representative to the GNSO Council1. Note that, for the purposes of these procedures, the Nominating Committee is not considered an “appointing organization.” Im asking you because I sent to Wolf a private chat during the teleconference, and Im still waiting your response (probably he may have not seen it). At the end, I want give my thanks in advance for time and the explanation that you can give me. Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALOAbogado - Especialista en Derecho de los NegociosSarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org

1 0

FW: Question.
by carlos dionisio aguirre Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

Stephane . First of all I want to apologize by my ignorance if it the case. Second I ask, in order to learn more. I ask the question to whom I consider is the person capable to give me answers. Going directly to the point, I have to say that I have a few doubts in relation with the past teleconference call quorum. My specific doubt is about, differents points: 1- Why did you accept the proxy given by Thomas Rickert to Mason Cole, being Thomas a NCA, and having in account that our OR&P, the specific rule say: 3.8 Absences and Vacancies 3.8.4 Remedy: Temporary Alternate a. For a Councilor who is not appointed by the Nominating Committee, the appointing organization may, at its discretion, name a Temporary Alternate to serve in the absent or vacant Councilor’s seat. b. For a voting NCA, the Council non-voting NCA is immediately activated to serve as a Temporary Alternate subject to provisions in Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate. The communication required pursuant to Section 4.8-Procedures, Paragraph b, if it cannot be submitted by the voting NCA, will be completed and forwarded by the non-Voting NCA.----------------------- 2- I understand (correct me if Im wrong) The Quorum needed to session in case of CPH is 7 Councilors present, all of this according Chapter 4.0: Voting 4.1 Quorum In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a vote, a quorum must be present. A quorum is a majority of voting members in each House, which must include at least one member of each Stakeholder Group. In case of the past teleconference call I can see on the transcript record only 6 councilors present & the proxy y (given badly in my point of view) by Thomas to Mason, List of attendees: Contracted Parties House Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao- – absent, apologies, proxy to Jeff Neuman Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert – absent, apologies proxy to Mason Cole Could you explain me what was the procedure to session? ------------------------------------ 3 - In a hypothetical case that proxy was bad given (having in account the rules mentioned), what is the solution for votes in each motion debated on the call? others clauses applicable in my point of view, for this case are: Chapter 4.0: Voting 4.1 Quorum In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a vote, a quorum must be present. A quorum is a majority of voting members in each House, which must include at least one member of each Stakeholder Group........b. Quorum An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate below) if present, would count toward quorum. (4.6 Proxy Voting An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).) BUT c. Proxy Notification A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. 1 The term “appointing organization” (see Section 1.3.1) does not comprise the Nominating Committee; therefore, the Voting Direction remedy does not apply to House NCAs. 1.3 Definitions 1.3.1 An “appointing organization” is defined to be the Stakeholder Group or Constituency that elected or appointed a representative to the GNSO Council1. Note that, for the purposes of these procedures, the Nominating Committee is not considered an “appointing organization.” Im asking you because I sent to Wolf a private chat during the teleconference, and Im still waiting your response (probably he may have not seen it). At the end, I want give my thanks in advance for time and the explanation that you can give me. 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

3 4

Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Comment Period
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-12dec11-en.htm Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Comment Period Deadlines (*) Open Date: 12 December 2011 Close Date: 13 January 2012 Time (UTC): 23:59 Important Information Links: Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/raa-amendments-prelim-issue-report-1…> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:raa-amendments-prelim-issue-report@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-amendments-prelim-issue-report/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The Preliminary Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendment is published in response to the Board Resolution (2011.11.10.18.32) in Dakar regarding proposed amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Recognizing that continuing to evolve the RAA is an important element of a program to protect registrants and safeguard the stability of a single interoperable Internet, the Board directed Staff to commence immediate negotiations with registrars on the RAA. The Board further requested an issue report to address any amendment topics that remain unaddressed upon the conclusion of these bilateral negotiations. This Report summarizes and categorizes these various amendment topic proposals and recommendations to amend the RAA in order to facilitate the commencement of a Board-requested policy development process (PDP) on the RAA. ICANN seeks community input on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments. This Report will be updated to reflect such feedback in the Final Issue Report to be presented to the GNSO Council after the closing of this public comment forum. A PDP is expected to be commenced by the GNSO Council, as requested by the Board, after the release of the Final Issue Report. Section II: Background The RAA is the contract that governs the relationship between ICANN and its accredited registrars. The RAA was last amended by the ICANN Board in May, 2009. At the time, some community members expressed their support for the 2009 RAA, while others insisted that it had not gone far enough to address concerns. A joint drafting team ("RAA-DT") with members of the GNSO and At-Large Community was subsequently formed, and published proposals to improve the RAA. The RAA-DT Final Report contained a list of specific topics for potential future amendments to the RAA, including proposals from representatives from the law enforcement community to enhance their ability to respond to cyber-crime and DNS abuse. In the Dakar RAA Resolution, the Board directed negotiations between the contracted parties & ICANN and Registrars, to be commenced immediately, so as to result in proposed amendments to be provided for consideration at ICANN's meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. The Dakar RAA Resolution clarified that the subject of the negotiations is to include the recommendations made by law enforcement, those made by the GNSO RAA Drafting Team in its Final Report, as well as other topics that would advance the twin goals of registrant protection and DNS stability. This resolution further requested the creation of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO PDP as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP. Separately, on 6 October 2011, the GNSO Council motion passed a motion requesting an issue report on certain of these law enforcement recommendations. Because of overlap in topics identified in this GNSO Council motion with the topics referenced by the Board in its Dakar RAA Resolution, the Preliminary Issue Report on the RAA Amendments addresses each of these requests. Section III: Document and Resource Links Documents posted for comment * Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/prelim-issue-report-raa-amendments-12dec11… [PDF, 415 KB] Additional Resources * The ICANN Board's Dakar resolution on the RAA is posted at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7 * The Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the RAA: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o… [PDF, 6.78 MB] * Staff-published Discussion Paper on the Next Steps for the RAA: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/final-raa-discussion-paper-13oct11-en.pdf [PDF, 1.58 MB] * Registrar Accreditation Agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/agreements.html Section IV: Additional Information None Staff Contact: Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor Email: Margie.milam(a)icann.org<mailto:Margie.milam@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20GNSO%20Issue%20Report%20on%20the%20Registrar%20Accreditation%20Agreement%20Amendments%20public%20comment%20period> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0