May 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

Councillors, Please find the report attached. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Date : 8 mai 2011 04:01:29 HAEC > À : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Cc : Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, ALAC EXCOM <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Objet : Rép : Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG > > Here's a pdf of the report. > > Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > ============================= > > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > Dear Rafik, > > many thanks for your message. > > On behalf of the ALAC, I would like to express our thanks for this > report which we are very eager to study. We are aware of the hard work > that went into producing it and thank all of the volunteers in the > working group for their efforts. > A more formalised reply to the JAS WG Chairs will probably be drafted by > the ALAC in the near future. For the time being, the next step will be > for the ALAC to collect input from our members. > > Warm regards, > > Olivier Crepin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > On 08/05/2011 01:51, Rafik Dammak wrote : > > Hello , > > > > I am sending the link to the second milestone report for the JAS WG to > > our respective chartering organizations: GNSO and ALAC for > > consideration and endorsement in order to show the progress done > > there acknowledging that we need to do more. > > https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations > > > > @Stephane I am going to submit a motion in due time to be voted in > > the next GNSO council confcall and we are going to make update for > > GNSO council. > > Thank you, > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > >

1 0

GNSO non contracted parties house - election of ICANN Board seat 14
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 8, 2011

May 8, 2011

Councillors, The NCPH has carried out its elections for Board Seat 14. Please allow me first of all to congratulate and thank Rita Rodin Johnston for her outstanding service on the Board. I'm sure you will all join me in wishing Rita all the best in her future projects, now that she is about to get her life back. Bill Graham has been elected as her successor. Congratulations to Bill and thanks to all the candidates. This email serves as official notice of Bill's election for ICANN GC and Secretary. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

Re: JAS matters
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 8, 2011

May 8, 2011

Thanks Olivier. Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone4 Le 8 mai 2011 à 00:57, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > > I understand that the ALAC will include in its introduction a mention > about the ratification status wrt the ALAC only. > I will suggest to the ALAC that a sentence explicitly mentions that the > GNSO approval process is independent and has not reached approval stage. > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > > Le 07/05/2011 20:32, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : >> Councillors, >> >> Please see below some additional explanations by Olivier on the way ALAC plans to proceed with this. >> >> Olivier, please acknowledge the GNSO's request that the report either be sent to the Board after we have had a chance to approve it, or failing that, that the report bear the caveat that the GNSO has not approved it yet. Please also let us know what ALAC thinks of this request and whether you feel you can accommodate it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> >> Le 6 mai 2011 à 20:56, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : >> >>> Dear Stéphane, >>> >>> further to our telephone conversation, let me confirm the timetable that >>> the ALAC is expected to follow with regards to the Joint Applicant >>> Support (JAS). >>> >>> The ALAC expects that this week-end, it will receive a copy of the JAS >>> group report, which it understands will be a "Second Milestone Report" >>> rather than a "Final Report". >>> That report will be put on-line for At-Large members to comment on, >>> until May 9th, 22:59 UTC, the date at which the ALAC will take the >>> comments into consideration. With comments included, it is expected that >>> the report will be sent to the Board on that day, with a 5 day ALAC >>> ratification vote taking place soon after. This is standard ALAC procedure. >>> The May 9th deadline was given to the ALAC by policy Staff as the latest >>> date material has to be received, for the Board to be able to consider >>> it in their Retreat on the 20-21st May. >>> >>> I trust that this sheds some light on "what happens next". >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> >>> Olivier Crepin-Leblond >>> ALAC Chair >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >

1 0

Re: JAS matters
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 7, 2011

May 7, 2011

Councillors, Please see below some additional explanations by Olivier on the way ALAC plans to proceed with this. Olivier, please acknowledge the GNSO's request that the report either be sent to the Board after we have had a chance to approve it, or failing that, that the report bear the caveat that the GNSO has not approved it yet. Please also let us know what ALAC thinks of this request and whether you feel you can accommodate it. Thanks, Stéphane Le 6 mai 2011 à 20:56, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > > further to our telephone conversation, let me confirm the timetable that > the ALAC is expected to follow with regards to the Joint Applicant > Support (JAS). > > The ALAC expects that this week-end, it will receive a copy of the JAS > group report, which it understands will be a "Second Milestone Report" > rather than a "Final Report". > That report will be put on-line for At-Large members to comment on, > until May 9th, 22:59 UTC, the date at which the ALAC will take the > comments into consideration. With comments included, it is expected that > the report will be sent to the Board on that day, with a 5 day ALAC > ratification vote taking place soon after. This is standard ALAC procedure. > The May 9th deadline was given to the ALAC by policy Staff as the latest > date material has to be received, for the Board to be able to consider > it in their Retreat on the 20-21st May. > > I trust that this sheds some light on "what happens next". > > Warm regards, > > Olivier Crepin-Leblond > ALAC Chair

3 2

JAS
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 7, 2011

May 7, 2011

Councillors, Just a heads up on a conversation I had today with ALAC Chair Olivier Crepin Leblond. The JAS group is apparently ready with its final report and ALAC would like to send it to the Board asap. The deadline for consideration at the next Board meeting is May 9 (yes, that's this Monday). ALAC could apparently make this deadline. I explained to Olivier that there was no way the GNSO could have that a quick a turnaround (also bearing in mind the fact that we have not had the report from the JAS group yet). I indicated that, depending on when we get the report, the earliest we could consider it is at our next meeting (May 19). I also said that I thought the GNSO would prefer that the report not be forwarded by ALAC before we had had a chance to see it, although I did not know that for sure. But I told Olivier of our recent experiences with the JIG and the ccNSO. Please do not hesitate to comment. Do you think we can move faster? Should we? Rafik, your thoughts on this are of course very much appreciated, as I am only painting the picture from what I understand the situation to be, and may be wrong. Thanks and a great weekend to you all. Stéphane

4 4

Public Comment Invited on: Proposed Permanent Charter of GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
by Glen de Saint Géry May 7, 2011

May 7, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06may11-en.htm Public Comment Invited on: Proposed Permanent Charter of GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group 6 May 2011 Today, a Public Comment Forum is being initiated to seek community comments on the proposed permanent Charter of the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). Consistent with the its oversight authority regarding GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters (see ICANN Bylaws Article X<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X>, Section 5.3), t he ICANN Board passed a resolution at its 18 March 2011 meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-18mar11-en.htm> directing Staff to post the proposed NCSG Charter in a Public Comment Forum for 30 days. The Board is seeking the community's input concerning the Charter's provisions and, in particular, the fundamental organizational structure proposed. All members of the ICANN community are invited to review the document and share comments and observations with the Board and the wider community through 5 June 2011. Background/Explanation: As part of the comprehensive Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Improvements effort, last July the ICANN Board approved (see ICANN Board Resolution 2009.30.07.09<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-30jul09.htm>) the Charters of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs). These SG structures represent a new concept for the GNSO that was envisioned by the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group (BGC WG) on GNSO Improvements (see the BGC WG's February 2008 Report here<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-0…> [PDF, 193 KB]). The Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/ncsg-approved-charter-30jul09.pdf> [PDF, 60 KB] approved for the NCSG last July was "transitional" through the ICANN annual meeting in 2011. The Board expected the NCSG (see Sections 5 and 8) to develop a permanent Charter document that would take effect upon the expiration of the transition period. Over the past several months, NCSG members have been working with the Board's Structural Improvements Committee and have developed a proposed permanent NCSG Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/proposed-ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 179 KB]. All members of the ICANN community are invited to review the Charter and share comments and observations with the Board and the wider community through 5 June 2011. Relevant Board Resolutions and Bylaws: * Adopted Board Resolutions 18 March 2011: #13. Non-Commercial Users Constituency Charter: Posting for Public Comment<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-18mar11-en.htm#13> * Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting 30 July 2009<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-30jul09.htm> (See Item: B. Regular Agenda for GNSO Improvements) * ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5> Document/Page Links: * The GNSO Stakeholder Group process and historical charter documents can be accessed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/stakeholder-process-en.htm The Process From Here: At the end of this public comment forum period, the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the community comments submitted regarding the NCSG Charter. That summary/analysis will be shared with the community and the Board. The Board will subsequently take action regarding the Charter document consistent with its GNSO SG oversight authority. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: At the direction of the ICANN Board, the Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 6 May through 5 June 2011 and invites community input on this topic: * The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201106-en.htm#ncsg-ch… * To submit comments: See ncsg-charter(a)icann.org<mailto:ncsg-charter@icann.org> * To view comments: See http://forum.icann.org/lists/ncsg-charter/ Staff Responsible: Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motion and Document deadline - Wednesday 11 May for GNSO Council meeting on 19 May 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011

Dear Council Members, Reminder, that as required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 19 May 2011 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 11 May 2011. Please see the calendar page for due dates for the rest of the year: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Please note that the pending project list will be updated before the meeting and posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [soac-discussion] Input for Upcoming Public Comments - ATRT Recommendation 21
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 4, 2011

May 4, 2011

Filiz, Please find attached a rough guide of the GNSO-led items that may come up for public comment this year. Please allow me to make a personal comment on your implementation of rec 21. I do not think that simply asking community leaders, 10 days in advance of the deadline you set, to forward the issues which may come up on their radar in the next 12 months is an effective "process for developing an annual work plan". I can only speak for the GNSO, but our community may initiate projects at any time and is already dealing with many projects at the moment. As such, I would suggest that a sturdier plan is required, and more time afforded to our community, in order for us to be able to provide the required feedback after having had an opportunity to consult with the groups that make up our community. As it is, the administrative constraints of managing a community such as the GNSO means that its leadership team, its respective group leaders, and all its members have not in my view had sufficient time, nor sufficient guidelines, to provide you with the information you have asked for. The information contained in the attachment was prepared using our pending project list as a base (this list is available publicly on the GNSO Council website) and due to the time constraints your deadline imposed, although this was posted on the GNSO Council's public list with a call for any comments, responses were limited. Please understand that I am providing this feedback in order to help you better understand our own issues and in the hope that you can work with the GNSO and other ICANN communities to improve this process the next time it is required. To inform GNSO Councillors and the community, this message is also being posted on the GNSO Council's public email list. Thanks, Stéphane Le 21 avr. 2011 à 10:50, Filiz Yilmaz a écrit : > > Dear SO/AC Leaders, > > On 18 March 2011, at ICANN 40 in Silicon valley, San Francisco, ICANN Board has adopted resolutions in regards to Final ATRT recommendations. > > One of these recommendations, Recommendation 21, is about an annual work plan that forecasts matters that will require public input. > The full recommendation reads as follows (from http://icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-final-recommendations-31dec10-…) > > "21. The Board should request ICANN staff to work on a process for developing an annual work plan that forecasts matters that will require public input so as to facilitate timely and effective public input." > > In order to be able to implement this recommendation, we are seeking your input about topics that you think will be opened for Public Comment within the rest of 2011. As the ICANN Community leaders you are very well aware of the issues that are being discussed or to be discussed within your groups that will require public input. Accordingly, we hope that you will share your opinions with us this matter. This will provide us very valuable feedback for the compilation of this list. > > I will be very happy if you can send these topics to me until 2 May 2011. > It will be very useful if you can also provide a brief description of the matter as well. > This will be very helpful for those who are not very familiar with these issues. > > Then we will work on the list internally and we will publish one compiled list at the ICANN Public Comment webpage. > > Thank you for your contribution in advance and I hope to see you in person soon in Singapore! > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > > >

2 1

Fwd: Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA - Background Report
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 2, 2011

May 2, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> > Date : 26 avril 2011 22:29:44 HAEC > À : "'lesley(a)nominet.org.uk'" <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, 'Heather Dryden' <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, "'junsec(a)wide.ad.jp'" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, 'Raul Echeberria' <raul(a)lacnic.net>, 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' <ocl(a)gih.com>, 'Stéphane Van Gelder' <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "'paf(a)cisco.com'" <paf(a)cisco.com>, 'Louie Lee' <louie(a)louie.net> > Cc : Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, ASO Secretariat <secretariat(a)aso.icann.org> > Objet : Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA - Background Report > > To Chairs of ICANN SOs and ACs, > > FYI and for information to your membership: > > Attached is a Background Report for the most recent global policy proposal (the third) regarding recovered IPv4 address space: “Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA”. > > The background report will soon be posted on the ICANN website. > > Very best regards > Olof > > ------------------- > Olof Nordling > Director, Services Relations > ICANN > 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 > B-1040 Brussels, Belgium > Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 > www.icann.org > >

1 0

RAA amendment process
by Alan Greenberg May 1, 2011

May 1, 2011

To get this discussion going again, my understanding is that one of the points of contention was that the proposed methodology (both options) called for the GNSO to approve the revised RAA (as it did for the May 2009 version). Both contracted parties have expressed concern that the GNSO Council should not be inserted of into what is essentially a contractual issue between registrars and ICANN. Although I am a strong supporter of having other ICANN stakeholders INVOLVED in the negotiation process, I tend to agree that the GNSO Council should not need to ratify such changes. The source of the GNSO insertion in the process is a reference in RAA section 5.4 that says that upon renewal, the RAA may have been amended subject to the previsions of section 4.3. Section 4.3 talks only about issues that are subject to Consensus Policy (ie within the picket fence) which must be approved by a GNSO Council super-majority. Would the last motion that was defeated be more palatable to the CPH if instead of complete ratification of the new RAA, it required that the GNSO Council approve solely those terms in the revised RAA which are subject to Consensus Policy (under RAA 4.2)? That implies that no GNSO Council approval is required if the revised RAA changes no terms that are within the picket fence (not likely in my opinion, but stated for clarity). Alan

1 0