February 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: SoI TEMPLATE for Council meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

Forwarded On Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian Dear Glen, As requested, please find attached my SOI, as well as a copy of my current bio. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need any additional information prior to Thursday's GNSO Council call. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1 0

New GNSO website
by Stéphane Van Gelder Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

Glen, Do you know when the new GNSO website will be online? One of the things I'd like to see on that site is a clear link to the latest version of the GNSO bylaws and op procs. Although I have the documents to hand and other Councillors no doubt have them as well, the current site makes it very difficult to find them for people who might not be as well versed in GNSO procedures as we are. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

3 3

FW: SoI TEMPLATE for Council meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

-----Original Message----- Forwarded From: Paul McGrady Hi Glen, Thanks for your email. Attached is my SOI. I also include a bio, in case that is helpful. Although the SOI doesn't have a place for disclosure of other, non-ICANN policy development work, it is a matter of public record that I am counsel of record for Demand Media's trademarks. Additionally, many of my clients who win UDRPs occassionally need for me to interact with ICANN's compliance department to effectuate transfers through non-compliant registrars. The foregoing is not meant to be exhaustive. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. Greenberg Traurig, LLP Assistant: Loyanna Grierson (312) 236-4952 Direct Dial (312) 456-8435 Facsimile griersonl(a)gtlaw.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com.

1 0

Draft GNSO weekend SF schedule
by Olga Cavalli Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

Dear council members, Attach you can find a draft schedule for the weekend in SF. Please review it, note also that we have included House meetings and other issues of GNSO interest. Let us know, to Glen and me, as soon as possible if these times and dates are fine and if there should be other meetings and subjects that should be considered or included. Looking forward for your comments. Best regards Olga

5 4

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#32]
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

Please note that David Taylor will be absent and Brian Winterfeldt is the temporary alternate. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mardi 1 février 2011 00:40 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#32] Name of Officer: * J. Scott Evans Officer Email Address: * jscottevans(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date Prepared: * Monday, January 31, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * GNSO councilor has previous travel and business commitments that will require him to miss meeting on February 3, 2011. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * GNSO Council Meeting scheduled for February 3, 2011. 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] * Friday, February 4, 2011 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Brian Winterfeldt Temporary Alternate Email Address: * bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>

2 2

Standing Committee
by Marika Konings Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

Dear GNSO Council Members: In relation to agenda item 3.1 (Establish Drafting Team (DT) for new Standing Committee) of the next Council meeting, ICANN Policy Staff would like to share the following points for consideration during your discussion: * You may all recall that the concept of the Standing Committee derived from a CCT recommendation which read, ‘The CCT is strongly committed to the idea that the GNSO Council consider introducing a formal follow-up and/or tracking mechanism (e.g. Standing Committee) to ensure that the recommendations of the CCT as well as other Work Teams are realized in the coming months’. * As a result of further discussion in the Council’s Cartagena working sessions on this particular subject, the Council requested Drafting Team volunteers to develop a Standing Committee charter. * Staff suggests that, to help focus the DT’s work on a suitable Charter document, the GNSO Council might want to consider providing preliminary guidance concerning the purpose, scope, role, composition, etc., of the Standing Committee. For example, is it the Council’s intention that the Standing Committee track/follow up on adopted GNSO Improvement recommendations or should its mandate also encompass operational issues arising from the implementation of the recommendations? * Alternatively, the GNSO Council could consider asking the DT, as its first task, to outline alternative approaches that a Standing Committee could take and submit them for Council review and discussion along with a recommendation. Following completion of that task, the Council could then select the most appropriate model, which would guide the DT’s charter development work. As said, this is just some food for thought. We would be happy to answer any questions or provide further explanation on Thursday’s call. With best regards, Marika

2 1

RE: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

The bylaws are clear on the thresholds. If a motion contains resolves that require different thresholds to pass then take a vote and apply the threshholds as the bylaws require to each resolve, it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Of course, there will be situations where not all Council members are comfortable with voting on a mixed threshold motion for various reasons. In that event, I don't see any issue with proceeding as Jeff suggests. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to anything but a motion as a whole? > > I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's amendment as a way forward? > > Stéphane > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus policy. > > Tim > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100 > To: > Cc: ; GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider this motion as one whole. > > Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an useful solution to consider. > > Stéphane > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them inconsistently without consultation. > > Tim > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 > To: GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed the voting thresholds for this motion. > > While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report. > > I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There was no opposition to that during the meeting. > > However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with applying the lowest threshold to the full motion? > > Stéphane > > > Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit : > Dear Mary, > Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions. > Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations > > Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT letter > > Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)? > > Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy > Sincerely, > > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 > Fax: +92 21 35655026 > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. > > > From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] > Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15 > To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder > Cc: 'GNSO Council' > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > > > Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)? > > > > Thanks > > Mary > > > > Mary W S Wong > > Professor of Law > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > From: > Stéphane Van Gelder > To: > Zahid Jamil > CC: > "'GNSO Council'" > Date: > 1/27/2011 5:59 AM > Subject: > Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > Thanks Zahid. > > > Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly? > > > > Stéphane > Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit : > > > > > Dear All, > > On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP). In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3: > > RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects: > > Practices for identifying stolen credentialsPractices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators.Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusersPractices for suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.Sincerely, > > Zahid Jamil > > Barrister-at-law > > Jamil & Jamil > > Barristers-at-law > > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > > Cell: +923008238230 > > Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 > > Fax: +92 21 35655026 > > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. > > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#31]
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

Please note that Kristina Rosette will be absent and Paul McGrady is the temporary alternate. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Name of Officer: * J. Scott Evans Officer Email Address: * jscottevans(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date Prepared: * Monday, January 31, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Council Member is unavailable due to prior business commitment. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Council meeting to be held on February 3, 2011. 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] * Friday, February 4, 2011 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Paul McGrady Temporary Alternate Email Address: * mcgradyp(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:mcgradyp@gtlaw.com>

1 0