March 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Information about the Affirmation of Commitments reports
by Liz Gasster March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

All, Information can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/ http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#atrt-final Liz Gasster Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

1 0

[FWD: cross-functional working groups -- troubles that the HSTLD ran into]
by Tim Ruiz March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

The attached was submitted by one the HSTLD CWG participants describing, from his perspective, some the troubles the wg ran into. I found it very helpful in understanding the kinds of issues we should try to mitigate as we discuss how CWGs may operate going forward. Tim

1 0

16 April 2008 GAC letter on WHOIS studies for your reference
by Liz Gasster March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

All, This is the letter that Zahid just referenced. http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf Thanks, Liz

1 0

Fwd: Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

Councillors, Please see below an update from Edmon and the JIG group for your interest and discussion. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)registry.asia> > Date : 12 mars 2011 20:17:29 HNEC > À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : "'Jian Zhang'" <jian(a)aptld.org>, "'Ching Chiao'" <chiao(a)registry.asia>, "'Mary Wong'" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>, "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Objet : FW: Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs > > Hi Stéphane / Jeff / Mary, > > We are preparing the final report from the JIG on Single Character IDN TLDs. Just want to give a heads up on this, I believe we should be in a position shortly after SF to submit the report to the council. Attached is the latest draft. > > As one of these first joint community wg, the conceptual approach would be for the JIG to submit the report to the ccNSO and GNSO councils respectively and separately, and each councils would then proceed with it according to their processes. > > For the GNSO side, of course the hope would be for the council to resolve to accept the report and to recommend to pass it on to the board and staff. > > Edmon > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-jig(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-jig@icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung > Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2011 6:57 PM > To: 'jig' > Subject: Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs [RE: [jig] JIG meeting today: Mar 8, 2011 (12UTC)] > > Hi Everyone, > > As discussed in our meeting yesterday, please find attached a clean version and a redlined version of the Working Group draft of the Final Report on the topic of Single Character IDN TLDs. > > Please take a look and provide your thoughts/comments. > > Edmon > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-jig(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-jig@icann.org] On Behalf Of >> Edmon Chung >> Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:24 PM >> To: 'jig' >> Subject: [jig] JIG meeting today: Mar 8, 2011 (12UTC) >> >> Hi Everyone, >> >> As discussed in our meeting last time, please find updated drafts attached: >> >> 1. Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs >> - incorporated comments received from public comments >> - changed suggested editorial changes based on Olof's comments >> - moved evaluation from string similarity review to dns stability panel >> - added footnotes to some items in response to comments received >> - generally organized as follows: >> 1. Introduction & Background >> 2. Policy Aspects of Single Character IDN TLDs >> 3. Implementation Recommendations on Single Character IDN TLDs >> 4. Suggested changes to IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan >> 5. Suggested Edits to New gTLD Applicant Guidebook >> Appendix A: Viewpoints on the Identified Issues: >> Appendix B: Working Group Members >> Appendix C: Summary & Responses on Public Comments for Initial >> Report >> Appendix D: Summary & Responses on Public Comments for Draft Final >> Report >> >> 2. Draft Interim Report on IDN TLD Variants (v.0.4) >> - referred Aspect 1 to >> - updated from v.0.3 with discussions subsequent to >> - two step process >> - types of IDN Variants by allocation and delegation properties >> >> Here is a brief agenda for today's meeting: >> - Finalization of Final Report for Single Character IDN TLD >> - Update from Dennis Jennings on Proposed IDN Variant Studies >> - Discussion of Interim Report on IDN TLD Variant >> >> Note also that Dennis Jennings (leader of the IDN variant project and >> ex board >> member) will be joining us in this meeting to coordinate further on >> the joint efforts on IDN TLD Variants going forward. >> >> Edmon >> >> >> PS. Kristina/Gabi/Glen/Bart, please help send call in details again >> for today and see if anyone needs a dial out as well. Thanks. >> PPS. please also help post the attached drafts to the wiki >> >

1 0

Compliance - Fake Renwal Notices
by Zahid Jamil March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

Dear Pam, A thought: Kristina's point on IPR infringement is a great idea. I understand that there is concern on evidence linking a third party/registrar and the fake renewal notice. What about shifting the burden of proving/disproving on the purported party(s) who's logo is on the notice. Since ICANN cannot verify whether or not the notice actually came from the Registrar/Reseller, maybe there exists the possibility of sending a notice to the party who's logo is on the fake notice. This will put the burden on the Registrar/Reseller to make a clear statement denying any link with the sender of the fake notice. This would help is any future litigation. Also it may help with putting Registry/Registrar/Resellers on notice to take positive steps towards mitigating their liability. Eg. http://www.domainavenue.com/scam_melbourne_it_imposter.htm 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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.

1 0

Whois service requirement
by Steve Sheng March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

Dear Council Members, As recently noted, the Whois service requirements report from July of 2010 has been tentatively added to the GNSO public meeting agenda. I have prepared the following note to provide some background for the discussion. The service requirements report is the result of a Council resolution in May 2009. It requested staff to compile a comprehensive set of requirements for WHOIS that includes: 1) known deficiencies in the current service and, 2) any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past. In compiling this report, staff has attempted to distil from current requirements and policy discussions the technical requirements that would be necessary to implement to correct deficiencies and implement various policy proposals. The report is a technical inventory and does not intend to define or suggest the policies or operational rules that should apply. As requested by the GNSO in its resolution of May, 2009, staff shared the initial draft with the GNSO Council and with the other SOs (ccNSO, ASO) and ACs (SSAC, ALAC and GAC) for their input. The Final Report is available at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-… Staff have conducted outreach webinars and workshops of this report, and the presentations can be found here: http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-draft-final-…. I am happy to answer questions on the list or in San Francisco. warm regards, -- Steve Sheng Senior Technical Analyst ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers P: +1 (310) 578 8607 C: +1 (310) 463 8430 www.icann.org

1 0

Chairs roundtable
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

Councillors, Just a short summary of the informal meeting of SO and AC chairs that happened today. It was a 2-hour informal discussion, in the room were: Rod Beckstrom, David Olive, Akram Atallah, Olivier Crepin Leblond (ALAC Chair), Heather Dryden (GAC Chair), Patrick Falstrom (SSAC Chair), Matt Larson (RSSAC Vice Chair), Lesley Cowley (new ccNSO Chair), Chris Disspain (outgoing ccNSO Chair). We started off discussing the DOC's NOI on the IANA function and associated contract. Main points of the discussion were: - Although the GAC will probably not submit a response, a handful of national govts may. - This is the 1st time the DOC has put out an NOI on the IANA function. - There's an option for a 6-month extension of the current contract and expectations in the room were that the DOC would probably exercise this option. We then discussed technical issues around the root, and the probability of seeing the root forked by one or several countries. There was a feeling in the room that one important aspect is perception, i.e. if people are happy enough with the current model, then the temptation to adopt another one lessens. The last area of discussion we went to is current workload and prioritization within ICANN. Main points of the discussion were: - Is the current workload caused by new gTLDs and will it lessen once the program starts? - There is a need to better define the roles within the organisation that is ICANN. Who is supposed to do what? What is the Board's role? What is the role of each SO and AC? There needs to be a clearly defined roadmap and flowchart so that people know what they're supposed to do. - Training might help, so that staff and those volunteers that work hard on the SO and ACs might be able to put their meaning across in a more concise way, write shorter reports and emails, etc. As a conclusion, there was a general feeling that a meeting like this is useful for the various leaders of the SOs and ACs to get to know each other better and to understand the differences between each group more. I hope this short summary is useful for you. Thanks, Stéphane

2 1

Fwd: Alert To Change In Board Program For Constituency Day in San Francisco
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

Councillors, For those that have no seen this yet, please see message below. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> > Date : 10 mars 2011 14:38:14 HNEC > À : "stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> > Objet : Alert To Change In Board Program For Constituency Day in San Francisco > > Dear Stephane: > > David Olive is traveling today and he asked me to get this message to you as soon as possible. Please see below. Looking forward to seeing you in San Francisco! > > Best, > > Rob Hoggarth > > Dear Stephane; > > I am writing to let you know of recent changes to the schedule for ICANN’s upcoming Silicon Valley-San Francisco meeting, in particular a change to the planned program for Constituency Day on Tuesday, March 15. > > As a further follow up to sessions in Brussels, the Board and the GovernmentalAdvisory Committee have decided to schedule additional time during the SV-SF meeting to continue discussions on the new gTLD program. This session, open to observers, will take place from 9:00 am – 5:00 pm on March 15 in the Grand Ballroom. This is in addition to the already scheduled Board-GAC consultation set for Thursday, March 17. > > As a result, ICANN Board members will not be able to participate in meetings that day with stakeholder/constituency groups. The constituency meetings can still be held. I am just noting that Board members will be not available. Staff members that committed to attending your meeting will try to follow through on that commitment and you should communicate with staff members separately onthat issue. > > We ask your understanding for this extraordinary change to the public meeting schedule. A public announcementdescribing these changes will be posted shortly on the ICANN website but I wished to let you know in advance of that. > > Regards, > > David Olive > > >

1 0

Public Meeting and the use of weekends
by Adrian Kinderis March 12, 2011

March 12, 2011

All, I am a big supporter of not repeating the sins of the past (probably because I make so many of them). A few points around the public meeting; - What are we doing to ensure we are not debating wording on the fly at the meeting? - Are we going to make a rule that all motions MUST be locked down prior to the meeting? - If so, have we allowed time to dedicate towards this? - How are we catering for public involvement in the meeting itself (this has always baffled me)? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

5 4

FW: Contingent RAA Motion
by Rosette, Kristina March 11, 2011

March 11, 2011

Apologies. That should be "As you will see from the second to last Whereas clause,". ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 9:38 PM To: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: [council] Contingent RAA Motion All, I would like to propose an RAA motion that recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Process B was proposed by the Registrar Stakeholder Group members of the Drafting Team. I am hopeful that the amended process ("Process B+") is an acceptable compromise. As you will see from the final Whereas clause, this motion is contingent on the failure of the motion Mary has just introduced (and that I have seconded), and will be voted upon only if that motion fails. Safe travels to San Francisco. K -*- Motion to Approve an Amended Recommendation in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group. 5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

2 3

GNSO Council Meeting 16 March 13:30-17:30 local time
by David Olive March 11, 2011

March 11, 2011

Dear Stephane and GNSO Council Members: As you know, we have had to move the GNSO Council meeting from the Ballroom to another room because of recent schedule changes. The most appropriate space for the Council meeting is to move it back to the Tower Salon A where the weekend working sessions will be held. We have worked hard with the ICANN meeting staff to arrange the room in a way that we hope will be acceptable. The Tower Salon A room set-up will be: - a head table, long L shape (closed on both ends) for the Council and 3/4 staff, (27) - the audience will be seated in front of the head table, seating for 100+ as if they were in an auditorium, but flat, no raised 'stage'. - plasma screens in front of the Council members, - live scribing and two big screens - lunch at 13:00 for the Council only - coffee/tea break in the room for the Council only The meeting will start at 13:30 and go on to 17:30 local time. In addition, please note that continuing discussions between the Board and the Governmental Advisory Committee have also resulted in schedule changes for ICANN's upcoming meeting Silicon Valley – San Francisco Public Meeting. The Silicon Valley meeting schedule will be updated shortly. More information is at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-10mar11-en.htm. We apologize for these last minute changes, which we know may cause some inconvenience. Best regards, David David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

2 1

Staff utilization report
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 11, 2011

March 11, 2011

Councillors, I wanted to get this out to you asap and hopefully you will have time to read this by the time we start our weekend discussions in SFO. To that end, I would like to thank Liz for providing a short format for this report that makes it easy and quick to read. As you all know, we as a Council have been struggling with prioritization for a while now. Since the start of the year, we have stepped up our efforts. We have already deleted several projects that were either no longer active or just plain finished. We are also now looking at a pending project at each Council meeting (this is normally set for agenda item 2, except for SFO because of a scheduling conflict). On top of those efforts, the Leadership team has been engaging in discussions with staff so that we can understand the resource issues that are coming to the fore more and more often. At my request, Liz has provided some key data to help us in our understanding of the situation. This is summarized in the report below. I want to thank Liz and all the policy and support staff for the outstanding work they provide for both the GNSO and the community as a whole. I personally feel very fortunate and privileged to be working with such talented people, and I continue to be humbled by staff's ability to take on such an intense workload without flinching. Continuing with the personal comments, I feel that our (the ICANN community in general I mean) inability to manage our workload is one of the greatest dangers we face. It has been my experience, while on this Council, that there seems to be more interest in launching new projects, whatever those may be, than completing existing ones. And obviously, this way of doing things is not sustainable in the long run. I am therefore not surprised to see staff raising an insistent red flag lately. But I also think it is unfair to ask the Council to tackle this by itself. We have no control over, and no clear vision of, the way staff is assigned to each project, be they GNSO or otherwise. As the recent consumer choice issue shows, we also don't have control over how the Board may send work our way. And I am sure, although I am happy to be corrected on this, that the Board does not look at current staff utilization levels before assigning a new project to ICANN's SOs and ACs. If they did, I don't think the Cartagena consumer choice resolution would have been made in the way it has. So I think it is crucial that we as a community continue to look at this in great detail to try and find a way to improve. Currently, staff are basically telling us as a Council that we should no longer initiate new projects. Line that up with the tentative agenda for our SFO Open Council meeting, on which there are at least two motions that if adopted could add to the existing workload, and you can see we clearly have a problem. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : >

4 8

ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president?
by Rosette, Kristina March 10, 2011

March 10, 2011

All, (With credit to Kevin Murphy at DomainIncite for breaking the story) ICANN has reportedly hired "a psychotherapist with a distinctly Buddhist bent who has previously specialized in weight loss" as Vice President for Organizational Effectiveness. http://domainincite.com/; http://www.icann.org/en/general/staff.html. ICANN has gone without a Director of Compliance for almost 9 months and the GNSO Council is being told that no new policy work should be initiated because of staff workload, yet ICANN focuses its resources on hiring a VP for Organizational Effectiveness? Unbelievable and inexcusable. Does anyone believe the organizational effectiveness has improved since Mr. Levinson was hired? I propose we raise this example of misplaced organizational priorities with the Board. I'm willing to sacrifice my GAC question to do so. Comments? K

3 3

FW: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president?
by Rosette, Kristina March 10, 2011

March 10, 2011

oops - I meant John Jeffrey. ________________________________ From: Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:58 AM To: 'Tim Ruiz' Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president? Much more diplomatically put, Tim. I had understood David to mean only that John Jeffries is now the person to whom Compliance staffing questions should be directed and not that there is no current intention to fill the Director of Compliance position. Although, if the latter is true, I would certainly like to know that. ________________________________ From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:55 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president? I would like to here the Board's thought about the recent direction in Staffing. Also, I undertood David's earlier response regarding the Compliance Diretor to mean that Compliance now reports to Legal and so there is no intent to fill that position. Perhaps I misundertood, and perhaps it isn't yet clear to Staff either. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president? > From: "Rosette, Kristina" > Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 8:32 am > To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" > > > All, > > (With credit to Kevin Murphy at DomainIncite for breaking the story) ICANN has reportedly hired "a psychotherapist with a distinctly Buddhist bent who has previously specialized > in weight loss" as Vice President for Organizational Effectiveness. http://domainincite.com/; http://www.icann.org/en/general/staff.html. > ICANN has gone without a Director of Compliance for almost 9 months and the GNSO Council is being told that no new policy work should be initiated because of staff workload, yet > ICANN focuses its resources on hiring a VP for Organizational Effectiveness? Unbelievable and inexcusable. Does anyone believe the organizational effectiveness has improved since Mr. Levinson was hired? > I propose we raise this example of misplaced organizational priorities with the Board. I'm willing to sacrifice my GAC question to do so. > Comments? > K > > > > >

5 5

Draft Schedule for GNSO Related meetings in San Francisco
by Glen de Saint Géry March 10, 2011

March 10, 2011

Dear All, Attached please find the draft schedule for the GNSO related meetings in San Francisco. There may still be changes depending on the main ICANN schedule and the wiki agendas so please watch for the updates. Remote participation information will be following. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 4

RE: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting - San Francisco Silicon Valley 16 March 2011
by john＠crediblecontext.com March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

4 4

RE: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president?
by Alan Greenberg March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

David's message said "we are hoping to post a notice shortly concerning the two open positions". I sort of assumed/hoped/prayed that the notice would say that they had filled the positions, not that they had shelved the them! Alan At 09/03/2011 10:57 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: >Much more diplomatically put, Tim. > >I had understood David to mean only that John Jeffries is now the >person to whom Compliance staffing questions should be directed and >not that there is no current intention to fill the Director of >Compliance position. Although, if the latter is true, I would >certainly like to know that. > > >---------- >From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:55 AM >To: Rosette, Kristina >Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: RE: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president? > >I would like to here the Board's thought about the recent direction in >Staffing. Also, I undertood David's earlier response regarding the >Compliance Diretor to mean that Compliance now reports to Legal and so >there is no intent to fill that position. Perhaps I misundertood, and >perhaps it isn't yet clear to Staff either. > > >Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president? > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" > > Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 8:32 am > > To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" > > > > > All, > > > > (With credit to Kevin Murphy at DomainIncite for breaking the > story) ICANN has reportedly hired "a psychotherapist with a > distinctly Buddhist bent who has previously specialized > > in weight loss" as Vice President for Organizational > Effectiveness. http://domainincite.com/; > http://www.icann.org/en/general/staff.html. > > ICANN has gone without a Director of Compliance for almost 9 > months and the GNSO Council is being told that no new policy work > should be initiated because of staff workload, yet > > ICANN focuses its resources on hiring a VP for Organizational > Effectiveness? Unbelievable and inexcusable. Does anyone believe > the organizational effectiveness has improved since Mr. Levinson > was hired? > > I propose we raise this example of misplaced organizational > priorities with the Board. I'm willing to sacrifice my GAC question to do so. > > Comments? > > K > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Contingent RAA Motion
by Rosette, Kristina March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

All, I would like to propose an RAA motion that recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Process B was proposed by the Registrar Stakeholder Group members of the Drafting Team. I am hopeful that the amended process ("Process B+") is an acceptable compromise. As you will see from the final Whereas clause, this motion is contingent on the failure of the motion Mary has just introduced (and that I have seconded), and will be voted upon only if that motion fails. Safe travels to San Francisco. K -*- Motion to Approve an Amended Recommendation in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group. 5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

3 5

RE: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president?
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

I would like to here the Board's thought about the recent direction in Staffing. Also, I undertood David's earlier response regarding the Compliance Diretor to mean that Compliance now reports to Legal and so there is no intent to fill that position. Perhaps I misundertood, and perhaps it isn't yet clear to Staff either. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] ICANN hires weight loss guru as vice president? > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 8:32 am > To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > All, > > (With credit to Kevin Murphy at DomainIncite for breaking the story) ICANN has reportedly hired "a psychotherapist with a distinctly Buddhist bent who has previously specialized > in weight loss" as Vice President for Organizational Effectiveness. http://domainincite.com/; http://www.icann.org/en/general/staff.html. > ICANN has gone without a Director of Compliance for almost 9 months and the GNSO Council is being told that no new policy work should be initiated because of staff workload, yet > ICANN focuses its resources on hiring a VP for Organizational Effectiveness? Unbelievable and inexcusable. Does anyone believe the organizational effectiveness has improved since Mr. Levinson was hired? > I propose we raise this example of misplaced organizational priorities with the Board. I'm willing to sacrifice my GAC question to do so. > Comments? > K > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development work and Cross Working Groups
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

I think what Jeff lays out pretty much expresses the issues I see. I think such groups may be useful in "contributing" to certain policy work and may be useful in performing other non-policy related work. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development > work and Cross Working Groups > From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 9:45 am > To: <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.us>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > Yes Tim, I know. The idea was to show another side of the same reality. I believe we can think on this, waht do you think about it ? . Thank`s. > > 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 > > > > > From: tim(a)godaddy.com > To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com > CC: jeff.neuman(a)neustar.us; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development work and Cross Working Groups > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:41:58 -0700 > > I don't disagree with your thoughts Carlos, but those concerns should > have been focused toward the PPSC Work Team on improving the policy > development process. > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development > > work and Cross Working Groups > > From: carlos dionisio aguirre > > Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 9:17 am > > To: , > > > > > > Dear Councillors: I fully Agree with jeff on this point and the > > importance to talk deeply about it, does not mean that I agreed with the > > document but yes with the subject. In my point of view we need a kind > > of regulation on this matter to improve the great work of this groups, > > wich give us the possibilty to get different points of view coming from > > different positions making reality the bottom up process, the > > participation and diversity. But, also, I believe that is needed to > > clarify how it must functioning and how they get their conclusions in > > order to avoid useless differences. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us > > > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:07:44 -0500 > > > Subject: [council] Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development work and Cross Working Groups > > > > > > > > > With permission from the Business Constituency, I wanted to point you all to a document posted on the BC list at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/pdf6peymFRFtB.pdf regarding Cross SO/AC issues. Without commenting on whether I agree with all of the substance, I personally believe this document touches on all of the areas we should be thinking about. As you know, this subject will be up for discussion over the weekend with the council and community, and I think these questions are ones we should all be asking ourselves about CWGs in the future. I am not sure who is leading that discussion, but this document could sure help us move this along. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > 46000 Center Oak Plaza 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development work and Cross Working Groups
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

I don't disagree with your thoughts Carlos, but those concerns should have been focused toward the PPSC Work Team on improving the policy development process. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development > work and Cross Working Groups > From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 9:17 am > To: <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.us>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Dear Councillors: I fully Agree with jeff on this point and the > importance to talk deeply about it, does not mean that I agreed with the > document but yes with the subject. In my point of view we need a kind > of regulation on this matter to improve the great work of this groups, > wich give us the possibilty to get different points of view coming from > different positions making reality the bottom up process, the > participation and diversity. But, also, I believe that is needed to > clarify how it must functioning and how they get their conclusions in > order to avoid useless differences. > > > > 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 > > > > > > From: Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us > > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:07:44 -0500 > > Subject: [council] Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development work and Cross Working Groups > > > > > > With permission from the Business Constituency, I wanted to point you all to a document posted on the BC list at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/pdf6peymFRFtB.pdf regarding Cross SO/AC issues. Without commenting on whether I agree with all of the substance, I personally believe this document touches on all of the areas we should be thinking about. As you know, this subject will be up for discussion over the weekend with the council and community, and I think these questions are ones we should all be asking ourselves about CWGs in the future. I am not sure who is leading that discussion, but this document could sure help us move this along. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > 46000 Center Oak Plaza 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. > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] RAA Motion
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

I can try that, but clearly, based on the past vote, there is likely an unresolvable difference of opinion between our houses. My "friendly" amendment would be to change it to a simple thank you to the WG and a note to Registrars and Staff to be sure they are aware the report has been completed for their consideration. Is that likely to be accepted as a friendly? Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] RAA Motion > From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 9:20 am > To: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > That's true, Tim, but since a WG Report is presented to the Council for its discussion/action/opinion, my point is that we need to then discuss/act/opine (as appropriate). If the phrasing I chose was inappropriate, I imagine that can be cured by a friendly amendment. > > Cheers > Mary > > > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > > > > > > > > From: > > > To: > , > > CC: > > > Date: > 3/9/2011 10:12 AM > > Subject: > Re: [council] RAA MotionThe Council should not assume responsibilities it has not been given. Council can express an opinion on anything I guess, but this motion is constructed as a directive. > > So we can continue to make this motion and see it defeated, or we can try to find a more constructive way forward. > > Tim > > > From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:01:01 -0500 > Cc: > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > > > Tim, I understand your point and know it's been made before. However, as Process A received Strong Support from the WG's Sub-Team B and is classified as a recommendation in the WG Final Report, I don't see how the Council can responsibly ignore it without a fuller discussion. > > Cheers > Mary > > > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > > > > > > > > From: > "Tim Ruiz" > > To: > > > CC: > > > Date: > 3/9/2011 1:43 AM > > Subject: > RE: [council] RAA MotionAs I've tried to point out before, this is a waste of time. The RAA is > between ICANN and Registrars and only they will decide how the process > takes place. And as was made clear to the RAA WG, Registrars will not > engage if observers are present. All the Council should do at this point > is thank the WG and let Registrars and Staff take from it there. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] RAA Motion > > From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > > Date: Tue, March 08, 2011 7:40 pm > > To: > > > > > > > > > > > > Fellow Councilors: > > > > I'd like to propose a motion picking up on the RAA issue that (aside from the Registrant Rights Charter issue, which we voted on) we tabled in Cartagena: > > > > Motion to Approve a Proposal in the Final Report of the Drafting Team on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding a Process for Amendments to the RAA > > > > Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; > > > > Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; > > > > Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; > > > > Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; > > Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve some of the other recommendations and proposals contained in the Final Report. > > > > NOW THEREFORE BE IT: > > > > RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that ICANN Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report, to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. Process A states: > > Ã¢ï¿½ï¿½1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO Council (i.e., final form of this report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy. > > 2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement. > > 3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussions on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress. > > 4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback. > > 5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat step 4 as necessary. > > 6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. > > 7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form. > > 8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. > > 9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.Ã¢ï¿½ï¿½ > > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. > > > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > > > Mary W S Wong > > Professor of Law > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > > Two White Street > > Concord, NH 03301 > > USA > > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Motion
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

As I've tried to point out before, this is a waste of time. The RAA is between ICANN and Registrars and only they will decide how the process takes place. And as was made clear to the RAA WG, Registrars will not engage if observers are present. All the Council should do at this point is thank the WG and let Registrars and Staff take from it there. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RAA Motion > From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > Date: Tue, March 08, 2011 7:40 pm > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Fellow Councilors: > > I'd like to propose a motion picking up on the RAA issue that (aside from the Registrant Rights Charter issue, which we voted on) we tabled in Cartagena: > > Motion to Approve a Proposal in the Final Report of the Drafting Team on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding a Process for Amendments to the RAA > > Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; > > Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; > > Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; > > Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; > Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve some of the other recommendations and proposals contained in the Final Report. > > NOW THEREFORE BE IT: > > RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that ICANN Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report, to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. Process A states: > â��1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO Council (i.e., final form of this report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy. > 2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement. > 3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussions on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress. > 4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback. > 5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat step 4 as necessary. > 6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. > 7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form. > 8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. > 9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.â�� > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >

3 3

Discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development work and Cross Working Groups
by Neuman, Jeff March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

With permission from the Business Constituency, I wanted to point you all to a document posted on the BC list at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/pdf6peymFRFtB.pdf regarding Cross SO/AC issues. Without commenting on whether I agree with all of the substance, I personally believe this document touches on all of the areas we should be thinking about. As you know, this subject will be up for discussion over the weekend with the council and community, and I think these questions are ones we should all be asking ourselves about CWGs in the future. I am not sure who is leading that discussion, but this document could sure help us move this along. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza 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.

2 3

Whois motion
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies: 1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council. 2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year. 3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year. The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move: Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible: 1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council. 2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year. 3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.

6 9