May 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Munich Registry/Registrar Event
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 May '11

26 May '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25may11-en.htm Munich Registry/Registrar Event 25 May 2011 On 12-13 May 2011, ICANN hosted its Europe Regional Registry/Registrar Event in Munich, Germany. ICANN shared news of this event with the community in its 28 March 2011 blog post<http://blog.icann.org/2011/03/icann-to-convene-annual-europe-regional-regis…>. More than 60 participants including representatives from gTLD registries, ICANN-accredited registrars, and numerous observers including a ccTLD registry and future new gTLD applicants, attended the event. ICANN introduced the regional event model in 2005 and the primary goals are two-fold. First, they provide an educational opportunity, to discuss topics important to the effective contractual compliance and operation of a gTLD registry or ICANN-accredited registrar. Second, the sessions are intended to broaden participation in the ICANN multi-stakeholder governance model. Additionally, the event is open to observers that may have an interest in becoming a gTLD registry or ICANN-accredited registrar. While the agenda for ICANN general meetings includes policy issue debates and decision-making by various ICANN groups, these regional events have a different focus. They are not intended as a replacement for attendance at the ICANN meetings, but are designed to assure that the parties to contracts with ICANN better understand their roles and responsibilities while encouraging them to participate more fully in the process. These events are also an opportunity for future gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrar to learn more about what is involved in serving in those stakeholder groups. Efforts to enhance the interactive nature of the presentations have proven successful as participants actively contribute to the presentations with questions and input gleaned from their own experiences. The two-day agenda included ICANN staff providing updates and answering questions on topics including, new gTLDs, GSNO Policy Development, Contractual Compliance, gTLD Registry and Registrar Operational Readiness for new gTLDs, Registrar Training Program, and IDNs. Additionally, Stéphane van Gelder, Chair of the GNSO Council and Chuck Gomes, former Chair of the GSNO Council, led a session about the GNSO, Jean-Christophe Vignes, Vice Chair of the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and James Bladel, Director, Policy Planning at GoDaddy, led a session about the Stakeholder group, Michel Neylon, CEO of Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd., facilitated a discussion about Registrars/Law Enforcement, and Edmon Chung, CEO of DotAsia, led a session about the Joint IDN Working Group. Lastly, the following gTLD registries opted to provide an update on their TLDs' activities to attendees: DotAsia, Verisign, and ICM Registry, LLC. ICANN staff is grateful for the broad participation and contributions these speakers made to the event. Overall feedback from participants to date has been very positive. In the interest of transparency, the following information is available from the event. * Master Presentation<http://www.icann.org/en/presentations/presentation-regional-registry-regist…> [PDF, 4.46 MB] * Registrars & Law Enforcement<http://www.icann.org/en/presentations/presentation-registrars-law-enforceme…> [PDF, 654 KB] * Joint IDN Working Group<http://www.icann.org/en/presentations/presentation-jig-update-12may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 368 KB] * Registry Presentations * DotAsia<http://www.icann.org/en/presentations/presentation-dotasia-update-13may11-e…> [PDF, 9.90 MB] * Verisign<http://www.icann.org/en/presentations/presentation-versign-domain-name-indu…> [PDF, 467 KB] * ICM Registry, LLC<http://www.icann.org/en/presentations/presentation-icm-registry-xxx-13may11…> [PDF, 1.91 MB] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: The FY12 Travel Support Guidelines DRAFT
by Olga Cavalli 26 May '11

26 May '11

Hi, just a brief note to tell you that Travel Support Gidelines are published for public comments.(see below) It could be good to know if we want to make comments as GNSO and if the travel drafting team should work on this. Best regards Olga [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-25may11-en.htm ------------------------------ Public Comment: The FY12 Travel Support Guidelines DRAFT 25 May 2011 The FY12 Travel Support Guidelines DRAFT has been posted for public comment; a copy of the FY12 Travel Support Guidelines DRAFT can be found here<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelin…>[PDF, 518 KB]. The updated Travel Support Guidelines describe the proposed process for how supported constituent stakeholder travelers may book transportation to/from an ICANN Meeting starting with the 42nd ICANN Meeting in Africa in Dakar, Senegal. A public session will be held at the ICANN Meeting in Singapore to discuss the Guidelines and obtain any remaining input prior to finalizing the Guidelines for FY12. The public comment period will close on June 26, 2011. The draft Guidelines will be revised based on the comments received. A final version will be posted prior to ICANN 42 current being held Dakar, Senegal. Please go to http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201106-en.htm#travel-… order to participate and share your comments.

1 0

Topics for our meetings with the Board, the GAC and the ccNSO in Singapore.
by Stéphane Van Gelder 26 May '11

26 May '11

Councillors, At the last Council meeting, we were asked to provide GNSO-selected topics for the Board, ccNSO and GAC meetings. I don't think there's been any discussion on the list since then. Please forward any suggestions for topics to the list, to help Mary and Glen plan for those meetings. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

Arriving early in Singapore and want to have the same room?
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu 26 May '11

26 May '11

Hello - as far as I know a few Councilors will be arriving in Singapore before Friday 18 June, either to participate in the Asia Pacific Internet Governance Forum or for other business. I've been informed by ICANN Constituency Travel staff that the Councilors whose travel is being handled by them will be staying at the Swissotel Stamford. Is anyone whose hotel arrangements are being handled by ICANN also arriving before Friday 18 June and wanting to stay at the Swissotel Stamford, i.e. would you like to check in and keep the same room for the entire duration of your stay? If so, can you let me know so ICANN Constituency Travel staff can see what they can do to make this possible? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0

Re: Monday conflict joint ccNSO/GNSO Council and DNS Abuse Forum
by Stéphane Van Gelder 25 May '11

25 May '11

Thanks Glen, Margie and Gaby. These potential clashes are becoming more and more frequent and as we've seen from discussions over the past few days, less and less consideration is being given to official GNSO Council meetings. In my view, it should be understood that Councillors will tend to prioritize official Council business instead of side meetings. This means that in this instance, whatever is put up against our lunch with the ccNSO, Councillors should NOT be expected by the side-meeting organisers. Of course this is the official line I would like the Council to take but there will always be exceptions. That is understood and I am not saying that Councillors must attend all Council meetings whatever the circumstances. However, I am no longer OK with the tacit assumption that seems to exist at meeting planning time that putting something opposite a GNSO Council item is fine, and drawing Councillors away from our official business is also fine. Not only is that assumption detrimental to Council business, not only does it make those people working on our own agenda (Mary and Glen this time around) have to work twice as hard to accommodate these schedule clashes that seem to come out of nowhere, but it also sends a signal to the wider community that Council business is not important. I am copying the Council as I would like to push for further discussions on this. Thanks, Stéphane Le 24 mai 2011 à 21:24, Gabriella Schittek a écrit : > Hi, > > I believe so, but let me check this with Lesley & co - I'll come back to you as soon as possible! > > Gabi > > ________________________________________ > From: Glen de Saint Géry > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:01 PM > To: Margie Milam; Gabriella Schittek; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com > Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; Gisella Gruber-White > Subject: RE: Monday conflict joint ccNSO/GNSO Council and DNS Abuse Forum > > Thanks would the joint ccNSO/GNSO be acceptable against the IDN Variant meetings? > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margie Milam > Sent: mardi 24 mai 2011 20:50 > To: Glen de Saint Géry; Gabriella Schittek; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com > Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; Gisella Gruber-White > Subject: RE: Monday conflict joint ccNSO/GNSO Council and DNS Abuse Forum > > Is that the only choice? It seems as though the Forum will draw some of the counselors/ccNSO reps, but if that's the only time on Monday, I guess we'll have to live with it. > Margie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen de Saint Géry > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:48 PM > To: Margie Milam; Gabriella Schittek; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com > Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; Gisella Gruber-White > Subject: Monday conflict joint ccNSO/GNSO Council and DNS Abuse Forum > > Dear Gabi, Margie, Mary and Stephane, > > We are currently working on the schedule with the meeting team and there is currently a conflict on Monday: 12:30 -14:00 we have the joint ccNSO/GNSO lunch and the DNS Abuse Forum is being planned for 13:00 - 14:30. Could you live with this? > > Thanks. > Glen > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > >

2 1

Re: ICANN Summit on Developing Countries - Invitation to a preparatory meeting in Singapore
by Stéphane Van Gelder 25 May '11

25 May '11

Thanks Katim. I am copying your message to the GNSO Council list so that everyone is aware of this meeting. I note with some dismay, however, that your planned meeting on the morning of Sunday 19 will clash with our GNSO weekend sessions. This may prevent some Councillors from attending what sounds like a very interesting meeting... Stéphane Le 22 mai 2011 à 11:42, Katim S. Touray a écrit : > Dear all, > > > I am writing to invite you to send two representatives from your SO/AC/group to attend a preparatory meeting to help organize a proposed ICANN Summit on Developing Countries. > > > A number of ICANN stakeholders, and myself, have been having online discussions since early last month about having an ICANN Summit on Developing Countries. The attached file is the original proposal for the Summit, which is aimed at providing the ICANN community an opportunity to have an in-depth discussion on developing countries, their role in ICANN, and the way forward. > > > In view of the fact that the Oct. 2011 ICANN annual public meeting will be held in Dakar, Senegal, the aim is to have the Summit there. The Summit will include presentations and discussions on the following topics: > > A backgrounder on developing countries (what is a "developing country" or "least developed country," socio-economic development in these countries, Internet and ICT development in these countries) > ICANN and developing countries (ICANN's relationship with ccTLDs, international organizations of developing countries, governments, NGOs, and businesses in developing countries, etc) > Participation of Developing Countries in ICANN: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Way Forward > The meeting in Singapore will have about 20 or so invitees from the SOs, ACs, liaisons, other stakeholders, as well as some ICANN board members and staff. The tentative agenda for the Singapore meeting will consist of the following: > > What the proposed Summit will discuss? > Who will be on the panel of presenters? > The format for the Summit > (S)election of Summit Organizing Committee (SOC) > Additional details of the Singapore meeting are as follows: > > Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011 > > Time: 09:00-10:30 (90 minutes) > > Location: Raffles Ballroom > > Service: Simultaneous Interpretation in French and Spanish > > > Please let me know when you have selected your representatives to the meeting, and who they are. > > > Thank you in advance for your consideration, and please do not hesitate to let me know if you need any additional information from me. > > > Sincerely, > > > Katim > > > > <ICANN Summit on Developing Countries - Proposal.doc>

8 21

RE: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
by Alan Greenberg 23 May '11

23 May '11

Jeff, If "the ICANN staff that supports the ALAC submitted it directly to the Board at the same time it was forwarded to the GNSO", it is problematic. And I am sure that the ALAC would agree. What is the origin of this claim or the evidence of this happening? Alan At 23/05/2011 08:03 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >I really do not understand why we would have the >statement recommended by Bill. That has never >been the issue with the other Councilors on this >list. Perhaps there was a post or two on blogs >elsewhere, but that was not the concern >expressed by Councilors and I do not see why we >should be addressing that point. > >The issue for me (and some other councilors on >this list) has been that the ICANN staff that >supports the ALAC submitted it directly to the >Board at the same time it was forwarded to the >GNSO, and the ALAC formally forwarded to the >board for its consideration prior to the GNSO >having a chance to review it (much less approve >it). As we have seen, this report is already >being considered by the Board and the GAC giving >the appearance that the GNSOs input into the >matter is irrelevant. So the whole concern >expressed by Councilors in January with the new >charter about not communicating directly with >the Board with the GNSO Councils input was >completely circumvented by the ALAC because that >was not in their version of the >Charter. Granted we cannot control what is >another SOs charter, but we can make sure in >the future that we do not approve any CWGs where >that CWG has a provision that is inconsistent with ours. > > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy >Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 > > >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. > > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:43 AM >To: William Drake >Cc: GNSO Council >Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report > >Thanks Bill. > >The message would then become: > >Dear Peter, > >We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the >Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support >Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone >Report. As the other chartering organization of >the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has >not yet approved the Report. A motion to do this >was proposed at our May 19 teleconference and >tabled until our next meeting, on June 9. > >I will therefore look to get back to you after >this meeting to provide you with an update on >the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report. > >In light of false information that has been >circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would >also like to confirm that the JAS WG >simultaneously submitted its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for review. > >I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO >Council's message to the Board. > >Best regards, >Stephane van Gelder >GNSO Council Chair > > >If anyone disagrees with the content of the >message as stated, please say so by COB tonight >so that I can send the message tomorrow as planned. > >Stéphane > >Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit : > > >Hi Stéphane > >On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > > >Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a >report that hasn't yet been approved by us may >just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they >have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved > >I suspect they do understand what is plainly >obvious but believe consideration of a "way >forward" is necessary nonetheless. Which would >be a sound conclusion, given the serious need to >broaden both international participation in >gTLDs and political support for ICANN. > >With regard to your letter, may I suggest a >small and incontrovertibly factual amendment >that would be entirely in keeping with your >purely informational objective here? How's >about adding the following: "In light of false >information that has been circulated on the >matter, the GNSO Council would also like to >confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted >its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for >review." This is should eliminate the NC >opposition to a letter (haven't asked, but believe so). > >Bill > > > > > > >

2 3

Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
by tim＠godaddy.com 23 May '11

23 May '11

If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage the policy process. Let's just stick to that, please. Tim ------Original Message------ From: HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org To: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu To: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de To: william.drake(a)uzh.ch Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Sent: May 23, 2011 9:17 AM Mary, I agree and support your sentiments. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM To: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; william.drake(a)uzh.ch Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language). I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view. As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP 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: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> To: <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> CC: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William

1 0

Joint ICANN Board - GAC Statement: Teleconference on New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 23 May '11

23 May '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22may11-en.htm Joint ICANN Board - GAC Statement: Teleconference on New gTLDs 22 May 2011 The ICANN Board and ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) held another productive meeting to discuss the limited number of remaining issues related to the anticipated launch of the new gTLD program. This teleconference was the latest in a series of proactive, issue-oriented collaborations targeted at addressing GAC concerns to ensure the stable and secure delegation of new top-level domains. ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush recognized the members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, "for their energetic and well-intentioned devotion to the work of reviewing and improving the introduction of new generic top-level domains. The discussions have resulted in significant progress, including improvements to trademark and consumer protections, assistance for potential applicants from developing countries, and other areas of the program." Together, the Board and GAC have reviewed twelve issues, comprised of 80 sub-issues, discussing each in depth. The work has included several days of face-to-face meetings between ICANN's Board and GAC, meetings that were informed by preparatory papers and conference calls. "In particular," Mr. Dengate Thrush noted, "the GAC Indicative Scorecard and the reports in response to Board-GAC discussions were concise, clear and helpful." Governmental Advisory Committee Chair Heather Dryden said, "the GAC appreciates the time taken by the Board to discuss remaining issues on the call and looks forward to continued progress as a clear signal that the Board is committed to enabling the formulation of true community consensus in developing policy that is in the global public interest as well as increasing the overall accountability and transparency of the organization." The latest discussion and ICANN Board and GAC agreement on the benefits of having a face-to-face meeting in Singapore pave the way to possible Board consideration of program approval on 20 June 2011. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
by Stéphane Van Gelder 23 May '11

23 May '11

Hi Katim, Copying the whole Council list once again (which helps me avoid having to send 2 separate emails ;) ). We are working on sending the Board a message telling you when we expect the report to be considered by the Council. FYI, a motion was made for our last meeting and was deferred, so we are set to look at this at our next meeting, on June 9. Hope this helps. Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:54, Katim S. Touray a écrit : > Hi Stéphane, > > Thanks a lot for your e-mail. > > Your point is noted. But when does the GNSO Council have a target date for approving the report? Please realize that a lot of people are awaiting your response to the report, and it would be great if you can respond to the report ASAP. > > By the way, I'm going to be offline until Wedns. (May 25) as I'm going home to my village. So please bear with me. > > Katim > > 2011/5/23 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Hello Katim. > > The call sound premature to me, as the GNSO Council has not approved the report yet. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > > Le 23 mai 2011 à 03:13, Katim S. Touray a écrit : > >> Dear Olivier and Stéphane, >> >> First, let me congratulate you and your teams, as well as the JAS WG on their second report. I've had the opportunity to go through it, and it's quality work. >> >> To follow on the second JAS WG report, I would like to ask if you'd be interested in organizing a conference call for interested board members and the GNSO, GAC, and At-Large reps to discuss the status and way forward for the recently released JAS WG report. The idea was presented at the recently concluded board retreat in Istanbul that a public meeting on the JAS WG report (with the participation of the board and GAC) will be helpful, and toward this end, it would be useful to have a conference call. Please let me know if this makes sense to you and let me know when you want to have the call, if indeed you want to have it. >> >> Again, thanks to all of you and your teams for the great work you're doing on the issue! I hope we'll all be able to come together to have a useful program we all can be proud of. Have a great week, and best wishes! >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Katim >> >> > >

1 0