May 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] JAS motion
by Tim Ruiz May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

At least two Councilors have asked specific questions about the report, and the report covers more than what was chartered by the GNSO. It seems the resolution and/or communication to the Board, if any, should point out the questions that Council has and what we believe goes beyond our approved charter. In any event, I would strongly encourage the Council consider not stating "approval" as if these are consensus policy recommendations. And I would also prefer we not direct the Board as to what action they take, but only that it is for their "consideration." The Board can decide what is appropriate action. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] JAS motion From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 6:16 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Hello, I would like to submit this motion regarding the JAS milestone report. Regards Rafik Whereas: The GNSO council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Working Group released it Milestone Report posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the orignal charter and requested an update to the Working Groups charter, and The GNSO and ALAC, separately, renewed the Working Groups charter with additional work item in February 2011, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the work as defined in its extended charter and published a second milestone report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 8 May 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled JAS Milestone Report. and The GNSO council does not wish to delay the start of the new gTLD application process, and The GNSO council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council request that the report be put out for community review as soon as possible, The GNSO Council approves forwarding the second JAS Milestone Report to the ICANN board for review and approval, and The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on implementation of the recommendation pending Board approval, and The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may arise in the upcoming review by the community, the Board and from the Staff in the process of implementing the proposals, and That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review process. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.

1 0

RE: [council] Draft message to the Board
by Tim Ruiz May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

I am all for process, I argue its benefits and necessity often. But this is going too far even for me. If the Chair wants to make a statement of clear fact to the Board, one that does NOT include opinion or views, even if some deem it redundant, it seems overkill that the Council as a whole has to approve. If we assume that, then the Chair would not be able to speak at all, ever. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 4:36 am To: William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Thanks Bill. There's been so much email traffic on this during what was, for me at any rate, the night, that I may not be able to address all the points raised. I apologise in advance and would ask anyone who feels that I have missed something important to put me straight. On the statement itself, the reason as I have understood it from the comments made is that the report as sent by ALAC does not indicate in a way that is sufficiently clear that this report has neither been approved by ALAC or the GNSO. My understanding is that people thought this situation (a joint WG report is sent but has not been approved by either charters) to be weird enough to warrant a statement from us to the Board. So I drafted the statement to try and move things forward. Although now there is clearly no full consensus on the statement as it stands, I do sense majority support for it. The WG guidelines talk of Rough Consensus (a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree) and my sense is that this is what we have here. The Council has at times made statements with the caveat that some groups did not support, and this could be a way forward here. So far, if my count is correct (and once again please put me straight if it's not), we have support for the statement from Council reps of the IPC, the ISP, the BC, the RySG and the RrSG. So if the NCUC opposes (is that the case?), we could send a statement saying the NCUC opposes, and that there is Rough Consensus on the Council for this statement. Does this sound reasonable? On your comments to the current draft, I understand the dates discrepancy you highlight. It does pose a problem however, as the date I had put in the draft was the one on which the JAS sent us the report. As you correctly point out, ALAC sent it on May 6, while we only got it on May 9. That in itself is a problem, as it begs the question as to why one chartering entity got the report before the other did. As Jeff stated, this looks a lot like the situation we've just had with the ccNSO and the JIG. So trying to learn from our mistakes here, I had not wanted to get into that with our Board statement, but if you think we should, we can... Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 09:16, William Drake a écrit : Hello On May 11, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. Not true It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can’t they be stated? Haven't they been already, more or less? Olivier's cover texts says This Report is submitted [BY ALAC] for consideration to the ICANN Board and ICANN community. It was received by the At‐Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 6 May 2011 and is currently undergoing evaluation. Comments from the At‐ Large Community are currently being gathered until 13 May 2011 and will be transmitted to the Board in a separate document. ALAC ratification will follow. Note that GNSO approval of this document is independent and has not reached approval stage. Whereas Stephane's proposed note says On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. Aside from the discrepancy on the receipt date, the letter seems redundant with what they've already been told. So what exactly is the point of repeating it: to double check that board are able to correctly read plain English, or rather to implicitly flag the general disposition of some councilors toward the work of the group we chartered, and toward CWGs more generally? NCUC at least would like to understand what we'd be doing here and why so that we can consult and reach a position per normal procedures. As is, there's no consensus to send this text now. Thanks, Bil;

1 0

RE: [council] Draft message to the Board
by john＠crediblecontext.com May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

3 2

.net agreement comment period
by Adrian Kinderis May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

I note with great interest the comment period for the .net agreement has been cut off on the ICANN website at 6.50pm (PDT). I believe the timeline stated that it will end "10 May 2011". The day is not over. Who, from staff, has the itchy finger over there? Is this so that the conspiracy theorists have some content? Folks may still want to submit comments at this late hour and I believe they would still have the right to do so within the allocated comment period. I also note that there are a number of comment periods that have supposedly passed yet remain opened on the ICANN website. Can staff respond to this please and confirm that members of the public have until midnight PDT to send their responses and open the website back up for comments? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

3 3

Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
by Alan Greenberg May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

To be clear, the report initially went from Rafik to the ALAC and GNSO Chairs and to GNSO/ALAC staff only. A second copy in PDF format was sent to the same recipients (plus ALAC Executive Committee) by Carlton a bit later. Neither of these versions had the cover page or Summary on it that you see in the final version that Stéphane forwarded to the GNSO. Those sections were added by Olivier to make it more presentable. The cover sheet says "This Report is submitted for consideration to the ICANN Board and ICANN community." and the Summary says "This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC ratification." Both of those statements are accurate, as a report that was at that time coming from the ALAC. To correct another misunderstanding, the report came to the ALAC and GNSO chairs at the same time. The ALAC had decided at its last meeting to submit it to the Board prior to review in order to make the document cut-off for the Board retreat, with the understanding that the ALAC *would* be reviewing it and commenting (potentially positively or negatively) well before the Board retreat. The procedure was explained by e-mail from Olivier to Stéphane prior to taking place and this explanation was forwarded to the GNSO Council list - http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11229.html. Alan

1 0

Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
by tim＠godaddy.com May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

I meant no opinions or views. -----Original Message----- From: tim(a)godaddy.com Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 23:29:47 To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>; <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Adrian Kinderis<adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Reply-To: tim(a)godaddy.com Cc: Olga Cavalli<olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Seems we are splitting hairs here. The point is the Board has the report. The message Adrian proposed and drafted by Stephane states only facts not opinions or. Iews. I don't see any issue with transmitting it without a formal vote. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:05:01 To: Adrian Kinderis<adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Cc: Olga Cavalli<olgacavalli(a)gmail.com>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board not sure which email are you talking about, can you forward or copy-paste it, read again please carefully the email forwarded by Stephane, form which I copied the first part "The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG) (attached). We request that this Report be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Boad", that is at-large, not the WG which sent the report to the ICANN board. Rafik 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > Let me be clear. > > > > Rafik, how did the JAS report get in the hands of the ICANN Board? > > > > The rest of my email was copied and pasted from the report stating that the > report is submitted to the Board from the WG, not to the GNSO or ALAC. > > > > > > > > *Adrian Kinderis* > Chief Executive Officer > > AusRegistry International Pty Ltd > Level 8, 10 Queens Road > Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 > Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 > Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 > Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com > Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> > > > > - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: > www.twitter.com/ausregistryint > > > > The information contained in this communication is intended for the named > recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally > privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended > recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance > on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all > copies from your system and notify us immediately. > > > > > > *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:51 PM > > *To:* Adrian Kinderis > *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board > > > > you mean the message from ALAC? > > > Rafik Dammak > > Twitter: @rafik > > Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak > > > > 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > > How did the Board get the report? > > > > Also, > > > > *SUMMARY * > > This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC > ratification. > > > > > > > > *Adrian Kinderis* > > > > > > *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM > *To:* Adrian Kinderis > *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO > > > *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board > > > > Hello, > > > > @Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the > board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the > report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its > chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to > Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former. > > I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration. > > > > I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on > that. > > > > Regards > > > > Rafik > > > > 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > > We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having > been sent it directly from the WG. > > > > It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not > approved by the Council. > > > > These are facts. Why can’t they be stated? > > > > *Adrian Kinderis* > > > > > > *From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM > *To:* Adrian Kinderis > *Cc:* Stéphane Van Gelder; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO > > > *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board > > > > Hi, > Should we have a vote on this? > I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? > Best > Olga > > 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > > Olga, > > > > Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the > list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter > to the Board. > > > > *Adrian Kinderis* > > > > *From:* owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli > *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM > *To:* Stéphane Van Gelder > > > *Cc:* council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO > > *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board > > > > Hi Stéphane, > my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. > Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? > Many thanks and regards > Olga > > 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > Councillors, > > > > In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous > support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have > your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council > liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any > message to the Board. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support > Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand > that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. > > > > The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this > report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The > report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, > 2011. > > > > As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen > to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has > been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. > > > > I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's > message to the Board. > > > > Best, > > > > Stéphane Van Gelder > > GNSO Council Chair > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Fwd: Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

Councillors, Please find below the message sent by ALAC to the Board. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Date : 10 mai 2011 10:57:20 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Objet : Réexp : Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) > > Dear Stéphane, > > please be so kind to receive a copy of the finalised JAS Second Milestone Report, as transmitted by the ALAC to the Board. > As mentioned in the staff intro, another message from the ALAC will be sent to the Board after the expiry of the ALAC comment period at the end of the week. This will include an erratum to fix small errors/inconsistencies pointed out by our membership. I shall also forward of copy of that follow-up message to you. > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet: Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) > Date : Mon, 9 May 2011 18:27:43 -0700 > De : ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Pour : Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org> > Copie à : ocl(a)gih.com <ocl(a)gih.com>, carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff<staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > > Dear all, > > The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG) (attached). We request that this Report be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board. > > The main objective of the JAS WG is to develop a sustainable approach in providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries. > > This Report was received by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 6 May 2011 and is currently undergoing evaluation. Comments from the At-Large Community are now being gathered until 13 May 2011 and will be transmitted to the Board in a separate document. The ALAC ratification process will follow, the results of which will also be sent to the Board. > > Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage. > > Regards, > Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > website: www.atlarge.icann.org >

6 6

REMINDER: Motion and Document deadline - Wednesday 11 May for GNSO Council meeting on 19 May 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

REMINDER 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: [council] Fwd: Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)
by john＠crediblecontext.com May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

2 1

Draft Council minutes 28 April 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft GNSO Council minutes for 28 April 2011. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. If there are no changes to be made the minutes will be posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#apr on 20 May 2011 as approved. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0