March 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

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