June 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan
by Tim Ruiz June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

Mary, it sounds like a pre-endorsement of the JAS WG final report. That's not what I understood this was about. I certainly do believe it is an important issue, but I question whether a CWG/JWG was the right mechanism to resolve the issue. In fact, I am convinced it was not. I do appreciate and thank the JAS members for their hard work, they have been diligent about trying to address the issue, but I am not confident, based on what I have seen so far that, that the RrSG will endorse he recommendations. I would like to suggest something more like the following: "We unanimously, and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, believe that it is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants from developing regions of the world participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible without delaying rollout of the program any further. We reiterate also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report so that recommendations for ensuring equal access to the new gTLD program can be discussed." Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan From: <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 3:58 am To: "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "'GNSO Council List'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> How about - "The GNSO Council wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). We unanimously, and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, believe that it is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants from developing regions of the world participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible. We reiterate also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report so that recommendations for ensuring equal access to the new gTLD program can be discussed and implemented." I would suggest that, if we can, a statement such as this (tweaked as necessary) be issued to the community (including the Board and the GAC) as soon as 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>>> From: Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair(a)unsw.edu.au>To:Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, "tim(a)godaddy.com" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>CC:"'GNSO Council List'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 6/18/2011 4:48 AMSubject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan Or that using a CWG when we do not have clear, agreed processes made progress on an issue where there was common commitment to doing "something" much more difficult for the WG members and the Council Given that we now have a unanimous position supporting the group's work I think Mary's original proposal was very useful as it took the content out of play and left our ongoing discussion to focus on process management issues....in this case implementation proposals rather than policy proposals.... I'd support Mary's original version Cheers Rosemary ________________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis [adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:48 PM To: tim(a)godaddy.com; Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan +1 Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com Sent: Saturday, 18 June 2011 3:48 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan And that a cwg or jwg may not have been the appropriate mechanism for the issue. Tim ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:09:47 +0200 To: <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> Cc: 'GNSO Council List'<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan Thanks Mary, Would you be up for drafting a proposed statement, for the Council's consideration? Stéphane Le 18 juin 2011 à 09:01, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> a écrit : In partial follow-up to Adrian's point about possible deliverables and courses of action, I'd offer the suggestion I made during today's discussion, viz., that the GNSO Council consider circulating a brief statement to the ICANN community, stating its support for the work being done by the JAS WG and reiterating the importance of the issues they are considering. 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<mailto:mary.wong@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: "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei(a)cctld.ru<mailto:andrei@cctld.ru>> To: "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>>, "'GNSO Council List'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Date: 6/18/2011 1:13 AM Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan I think adding "set and bind to the timelines" would be beneficial. Or there will be always a workaround for "endless discussion". --andrei From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 12:56 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Adrian's gameplan As I discussed in the Working Session today. The four issues based on this discussion (as I see them); - Stephane speaking directly to the Board - Katim’s email and the issues of the JAS WG o Processes within the Council - The future of Cross Community Working Groups o Publishing of reports etc - The optics of the GNSO Council and the promotion of its internal processes and representation o Multi stakeholder make up o Differing views/ differing It would be best, I think, to try and get some deliverables and courses of action in order to promote resolution. Adrian Kinderis

1 0

GAC communication on new gTLDs and the ApplicantGuidebook
by Bruce Tonkin June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

Hello All, Please find attached the latest GAC advice on new gTLDs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
by john＠crediblecontext.com June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

1 0

UDRP issues report discussion
by Rosette, Kristina June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

To point out the obvious: If, as Jeff claims, the key problem is to get the bad actor registrars in line because the good actor registrars are doing the right thing, amending and changing the UDRP through a PDP is not the only solution. The other one is to amend the RAA accordingly. Also, this is the second time that Jeff has referred to the statement above as coming out of the registry-registrar meeting. I'd be interested in getting confirmation from someone from the RrSG if his characterization is accurate. Thanks. K

1 0

Discussion paper re: anti-revolving door policy
by Tim Ruiz June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

This is the paper I mentioned. It is intended to stimulate discussion, not a finished proposal. In fact, to what extent this should become a GNSO issue is clearly debatable. It is in Word format. Tim

1 0

Council/Staff Dinner Tonight
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

Hi - please meet at 8.15 p.m. in the lobby of the Swissotel Stamford. The bus will be waiting to bring us to the restaurant, and it will return to the restaurant at 10.30 p.m. to bring us back to the Swissotel. (Yes, it will be a bit like a school trip :) And for those wondering, it's 10 minutes away by cab - but trying to get a slew of cabs at prime dining time on a Saturday night with a major meeting going on where we are, and getting one back from the restaurant, is a nightmare you really don't want to deal with ... especially if you're jet-lagged.) Oh, and here's where we will be going: http://www.theblueginger.com/ Finally, the US$50 (S$63) covers transport, food and non-alcoholic drinks (sodas and juices). Those ordering alcohol (beer and wine) will have to split the bill at the restaurant (I've pre-ordered some bottles of white and red, but they will charge only for the number we actually consume). 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

Topics for our discussions with the Board
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

Councillors, Following on from our discussions today, please find below a refined list of topics. Please come back with comments and proposed edits asap. As a reminder, our session with the Board is today from 17:30 to 19:00. Thanks, Stéphane AoC i) The AoC process & outputs to date, and the broader progress of transparency & accountability across the range of ICANN processes. ii) The AoC's repeatedly stated requirement that ICANN act in the public interest. While there've been some preliminary discussions on such matters, the AoC is now almost 2 years old. Are we able to have a more probing and structured discussion with the benefit of this experience? CWG The GNSO Council has spent a lot of time recently discussing Community Working Groups (CWGs), to the point that we have a drafting team looking at this topic. Recent experiences with a couple of CWGs that the GNSO is involved in have shown that it would be useful to have a better-defined process for them. GNSO/Board interact. At the Board's initiative, our interaction with the Board seems to be changing. The Council's always found our social interaction with the Board, more specifically the dinners we used to have with the Board, to be extremely useful. Revolving door. In light of the DNS becoming a function more visible to, and scrutinized by governments and business on a global basis, and the size of the market about to be created by the new gTLD program, has the Board begun to assess how this might require changes to ICANN ethics policies, e.g., the introduction of an anti revolving door policy?

1 0

Conduct of the Chair in responding to issues
by Adrian Kinderis June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

All, I am happy to support the Chair of the GNSO Council to speak out on pertinent issues provided that; - An attempt is made to circulate the opinion/ issue to the GNSO Council prior; - He is able to justify his position and reasons for not circulating them Adrian Kinderis

1 0

Fwd: [ccnso-council] Reminder: Call for Volunteers Framework of Interpretation Working Group
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

Councillors, Please find below a call for volunteers from the ccNSO that Olga has volunteered to answer. Would anyone object to that? Thanks, Stéphane > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> > Date: 2011/4/11 > Subject: [ccnso-council] Reminder: Call for Volunteers Framework of Interpretation Working Group > To: "ccnso-members(a)icann.org" <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, "cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org> > Cc: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> > > > > Dear all, > > This is just a reminder that we are currently looking for volunteers to the > Framework of Interpretation Working Group. Last day for submitting > applications is Friday, 15 April. See below for further details. > > Kind regards, > > Gabi > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:25:28 -0700 > To: "ccnso-members(a)icann.org" <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, > "cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org> > Cc: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> > Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Call for Volunteers Framework of Interpretation > Working Group > > Dear all, > > The ccNSO is now looking for volunteers for a new Framework of > Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG). > > At its meeting on 16 March 2011, the ccNSO Council adopted the charter of > the Framework of Interpretation Working Group. The FoI WG will follow-up on > the work of the Delegation, Re-delegation and Retirement Working Group, > which in its final report > (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-report-drd-wg-17feb11-en.pdf) > recommends that a "Framework of Interpretation" should be developed for the > delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs to provide the ICANN Board and IANA > with guidance on these matters. > > For more information on the task and the scope of the Working Group, see > http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/charter-foiwg-16mar11-en.pdf > > Membership of the Working Group is open to all representatives of ccTLD > managers (members and non-members of the ccNSO) who meet the following > criteria: > > · An ongoing long-term commitment to actively participate in the > activities of the Working Group; > > · An ability and willingness to attend face- to-face meetings and the > regular teleconferences. > > · Commitment to read the background material (full reports) before the > activities of the Working Group start. The full reports and other background > material can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drdwg.htm. > > The ccNSO members of the Working Group will be appointed by the ccNSO > Council taking into account the background of the applicants to reflect the > diversity of the ccTLD community. > > The working group will also include participants from the GAC, Regional > Organisation representatives, external experts and liaisons from the GNSO, > At-Large and the ICANN Board. > > If you are interested in joining this group, please reply to this email by > Friday, 15 April, at the latest. > > Kind regards, > > Gabi > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to > ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > >

1 0

gTLD Whois Relay/Reveal pre-study survey announcement
by Liz Gasster June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

All, Please note the blog post I've just written to announce the selection of Interisle Consulting Group to conduct the Whois "Reveal" and "Relay" pre-study survey. http://blog.icann.org/2011/06/interisle-consulting-group-selected-to-conduc… I am still working to finalize contracts for the Whois Registrant Identification Study and the Whois Privacy/Proxy "Abuse" study, and will be announcing the organizations selected to conduct those studies once those steps are complete. Thanks, Liz

1 0

NTIA letter to ICANN
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

Councillors, For those of you that haven't seen this, here is a link to the letter NTIA has sent to ICANN re the new gTLD program. http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-dengate-thrush-16jun11… This is one of the topics that we could discuss during our Saturday morning session, if there is interest in doing so. Stéphane

4 6

Overview for RAP discussion
by Marika Konings June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

Dear All, In preparation for the discussion tomorrow on the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) recommendations, scheduled from 10.30 – 11.15, please find attached an overview of the recommendations organized according to the different categories outlined during the Council meeting of 19 May 2011. As a reminder, these categories are: 1. Those recommendations that the Council has acted upon and are in progress. 2. Those recommendations that the Council has started acting on by requesting input from ICANN Compliance Staff. The Council has not considered or decided what, if any, next steps need to be taken with regard to these two recommendations on the basis of the feedback provided by ICANN Compliance Staff. 3. A group of recommendations that the Council has not considered at all, some of which did not receive the consensus of the Registration Abuse Policies working group 4. One recommendation where the Registration Abuse Policies working group recommends that no further action is required. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Re: [council] Singapore
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

Thanks for letting us know David. Safe travels. Stéphane Le 17 juin 2011 à 08:49, Taylor, David a écrit : > Dear Stephane, dear all > > As mentioned, I will unfortunately be late joining you at this meeting as I am flying to Singapore on Saturday overnight as I have a wedding on Saturday in France (not mine). > > The overnight flight plus time difference gets me to Singapore Sunday evening so I am unable to dial in remotely to our weekend sessions. > > I will see you all Sunday night or later in the week however. > > Kind regards > > David > David Taylor > Partner > Hogan Lovells International LLP > 6 Avenue Kléber, 75116 Paris, France > Tel:+33 (0) 1 53 67 47 47 > Fax:+33 (0) 1 53 67 47 48 > Email:drd@hoganlovells.com > www.hoganlovells.com > > > ________________________________________ > Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales > with registered number OC353350 > Hogan Lovells refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells International > LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their > affiliated businesses. Hogan Lovells International LLP is a limited liability partnership > registered in England and Wales with registered number OC323639. Registered office > and principal place of business: Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG. > Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. > The word "partner" is used to refer to a member of Hogan Lovells International LLP or a > partner of Hogan Lovells US LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent > standing and qualifications, and to a partner, member, employee or consultant in any of > their affiliated businesses who has equivalent standing. A list of the members of > Hogan Lovells International LLP and of the non-members who are designated as partners, > and of their respective professional qualifications, is open to inspection at the above address. > Further important information about Hogan Lovells can be found on www.hoganlovells.com. > CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the > email is marked "officiel", it may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not > disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email > (and any attachments) from your system. >

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] ICANN 41 Public Forum Topics
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Date : 17 juin 2011 07:36:02 HAEC > À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > Cc : Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org> > Objet : [soac-discussion] ICANN 41 Public Forum Topics > > > [Sent on behalf of Peter Dengate Thrush] > > > Dear SO/AC Leaders, > > Prior to the Public Forum session on Thursday in San Francisco, we asked for your input on suggested topics that your group would like to see scheduled for discussion in the Public Forum agenda. > > This process seemed to be efficient in having a productive Public Forum on the subjects that the Community thought were important. > > We would like to repeat this process again at ICANN 41 in Singapore. > > Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org) know of the one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Singapore before the end of Tuesday, 21 June 2011. We hope that will allow your group time to consider this matter during its meetings up to that point. > > We will accommodate your topics as much as possible. > > Kind regards, > > Peter Dengate Thrush > > >

1 0

Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Hello Katim, This is a personal reaction to your message. I am, frankly, aghast that a Board member would send a message indicating that one of ICANN's SOs has been "slow" in acting on a report, in the way you portray the GNSO as having acted with regards to the JAS Milestone Report. At best, this shows a lack of understanding of the basic process that our SO is committed to following, by its own bylaws and by the ICANN bylaws. Immediately after the JAS had forwarded its report to us, it was considered by the GNSO Council at its next meeting. During that meeting, one of the GNSO groups requested the motion be deferred for one meeting. We have a long-standing custom of entertaining such requests. Hence the GNSO considered the motion again at its June 9 meeting, where I am happy to say that the motion (requesting, among other things, that the report be put out for public comment asap) was approved unanimously by the Council. Regardless of your personal interests, I would think that one of your duties as a Board member is to uphold the organisation's bylaws, to respect its SOs and to uphold the processes under which they work. Implying in your message that the GNSO is attempting to scuttle the "entire process of seeking ways... to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants" is not only untrue (as our unanimous vote shows), it is also a serious disregard of the way ICANN and its SOs work. ICANN's bottom-up process is not "pick and choose". Just because, on this issue that you care strongly about, you feel that things are not moving fast enough, this does not justify false allegations of possible attempts by one SO to "scuttle the process". As your message was sent in the context of a call with the Board, the GAC, Staff and ALAC, I consider it very public. Hence it could also be construed as an attempt to discredit the hard work being done by the community of volunteers that the GNSO represents. You request suggestions to the Board "to ensure that progress cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party" (and this is clearly aimed at the GNSO in this case). I would offer one: don't hijack ICANN's core process of working through its SOs and ACs towards the Board! I take your message to be a breach of that process and would personally appreciate reassurance from you that I am mistaken, and that is not what you intend. In order to initiate possible discussion on this at both Council and Board level, I am copying the GNSO Council, Peter as Chairman of the Board and the two GNSO-elected Board members for their possible comments. Thanks, Stéphane Le 14 juin 2011 à 01:33, Katim S. Touray a écrit : > Dear all, > > Thanks so much for your invitation to the call. I certainly was looking forward to joining you on the call, but unfortunately, I have a serious conflict that only came up earlier today (Mon.) I am a consultant helping prepare a strategic action plan for our Fisheries Department in The Gambia, and we were in a workshop all day today discussing a draft plan I presented a few weeks back. We were hoping to go through the entire document today, but we could not. So we agreed to meet again tomorrow to complete our review of the draft document. For this reason, I will not be available to join the call tomorrow, and I am most disappointed by this. > > Having said that, I hope you have a successful meeting tomorrow. In addition, I would like to say that I hope your recommendations receive the proper attention they deserve, and that in the end, needy new gTLD applicants get the support they need. > > One issue I would like you to discuss on the call is the timeline for the finalization of the JAS WG report. While I agree that it will help to insist that the AG mention that needy applicants should seek support through the process based the JAS WG report, I think it will help to provide a timeline for the finalization of your report. > > I'm also troubled by the fact that the GNSO has been rather slow in acting on the JAS WG reports. I fear such a situation might well be construed by many as an effort by the GNSO to scuttle the entire process of seeking ways and means to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants. One important product of such a perception would be that developing countries will feel that ICANN is not sincere when it says (as the Board did in Nairobi last year) that it is interested in launching an inclusive new gTLD program. I need not say that such a perception will also harm ICANN's efforts to strengthen relations with developing countries, and get them on our side on the many issues we'd like to have their support. For this reason, I would like hear what suggestions you have to the board to ensure that progress cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party. > > Finally, let me say a big "Thank you!!" again to all of you for your tireless and selfless efforts on this matter. Again, I am very sorry I would not be able to join your call, and best wishes in your deliberations. > > Have a great week, and safe travels to Singapore! > > Sincerely, > > Katim > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The JAS Working Group Call with members of the Board, GAC and GNSO invited, is scheduled on Tuesday, 14 June 2001, at 13:00 UTC. We hope you will be able to join us. > > PROPOSED AGENDA: > Introduction (5 to 10 minutes) Evan Leibovitch - Highlights Second Milestone Report covering short history how it was developed and specific summary points > Board/GAC questions/comments (30 to 40 minutes) – JAS WG would like to listen to individual feedback and receive questions/suggestions from GAC and Board members > Singapore (5 to 10 minutes) Rafik Dammak/Carlton Samuels – Should there be a public meeting with the JAS WG GAC/Board members during the Singapore ICANN Meeting? > As a reminder, it would help the JAS WG to better prepare if you could: > Advise on the representatives from the Board and GAC that will be able to attend the teleconference. > Send us any questions or comments on the Milestone Report in advance, if possible. > Kind regards, > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > > ALAC Chair > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dial-in details: Tuesday 14 June 2011 at 13:00 UTC > > For other places see: > > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=JAS+WG&iso=2011060… > > ADOBE CONNECT: > http://icann.adobeconnect.com/jas/ > > Wiki Workspace: > https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+… > > If you require a dial-out, please email staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with you preferred contact number. > ____________________________________________________________________________ > Participant passcode: JAS > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. > ____________________________________________________________________________ > Dial in numbers: > Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number > > ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 > BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 > BRAZIL 0800-7610651 > CHILE 1230-020-2863 > CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 > 10800-120-1670 > COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 > CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 > DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 > ESTONIA 800-011-1093 > FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 > FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 > FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 > GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 > GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 > HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 > HUNGARY 06-800-12755 > INDIA 000-800-852-1268 > INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 > ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 > ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 > JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 > JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 > LATVIA 8000-3185 > LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 > MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 > MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 > NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 > NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 > PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 > PERU 0800-53713 > PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 > POLAND 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL 8008-14052 > RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 > SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 > SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 > SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 > SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 > SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 > SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 > SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 > TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 > THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 > UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 > URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 > USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 > > *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. > > Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. > > >

2 1

Draft Agenda GNSO Council Public Meeting in Singapore 22 June 2011 at 14:00 local time
by Glen de Saint Géry June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Dear All, Please note the addition of 10:1 Item 10. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 10.1 Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN working group (JIG) Update from co-chair – Edmon Chung Thank you. Kind regards, Glen DRAFT Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Singapore 22 June 2011. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+22+June+2011 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 06:00 UTC - 14:00 Singapore Coordinated Universal Time:06:00 UTC - see below for local times 14:00 Singapore 02:00 Washington DC, 07:00 London, 08:00 Brussels, Tuesday 21 June (23:00 Los Angeles) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who will be physically absent. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24585 Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: •9 June – will be approved on 22 June 2011. Item 2: Pending Projects – Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (10 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam). 2. 2 Discussion 2. 3 Next steps? 2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 9 (8 –Policy Process Stering Committee (PPSC) removed, Synthesis of WHOIS requirements and drafting team on Community Working Groups (CWGs) added). • Other activities: 7 (9 – Synthesis of WHOIS requirements moved to "GNSO activities", GNSO constitutes reconfirmations removed). • Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committees (SO/AC) Working Groups (WGs): 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 1 (1 – no change). Item 3: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group (20 minutes) The WG published its final report for public comment in February 2011 and the public comment period closed on March 31. After having considered the comments received and modified its report accordingly, the WG is now presenting its final report for Council consideration Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part B Policy Development Process http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 3.1 Update from staff (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/council-briefing-irtp-b-14jun11-en.p… 3.2 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 3.3 Discussion 3.4 Vote Item 4: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Proxy votes (15 minutes) The GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the (see http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf) that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting. It tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting. The OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/osc-recommended-revisions-proxy-voting-14jun11… to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting. Motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 has been submitted for consideration relating to the recommendations from the OSC. 4.1 Update on OSC activities and recommendations on proxy voting from OSC Chair (Philip Sheppard). 4.2 Reading of the motion (Stéphane Van Gelder) 4.3 Discussion 4.4 Vote Break 10 Minutes Item 5: Community Working Groups (20 minutes) Refer to May 19 meeting action items: In response to the action item on Community Working Groups on the GNSO Council agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm, a group of people volunteered to work on this topic. Jonathan Robinson agreed to take the lead in stimulating discussions in view of presenting a report from the drafting team at the Singapore meetings. 5.1 Update from Drafting Team (Jonathan Robinson). http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccwg-icann-framework-14jun11-en.pdf 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next Steps Item 6: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (15 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Information item to provide latest update on the group's work. 6.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair. 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps? Item 7: Post-Expiry Domain Names Recovery (10 minutes) The group has sent its Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration on June 14, 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf Presentation of Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/council-briefing-pednr-14jun11-en.pdf 7.1 Update from chair (Alan Greenberg). 7.2 Discussion Break 10 Minutes Item 8: Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Community Working Group (DSSA) (20 minutes) Information item to provide latest update on the group's work. 8.1 Update from co-chairs (Mikey O'Connor and Jörg Schweiger). 8.2 Discussion 9.2 Discussion Item 9: GNSO improvements – Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (10 minutes) Information item to provide latest update on the group's work. 9.1 Update from chair (Olga Cavalli). 9.2 Discussion Item 10. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 10.1 Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN working group (JIG) Update from co-chair – Edmon Chung Item 11 Open Microphone (30 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 06:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 23:00 Tuesday 21 June Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 00:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 02:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 03:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 03:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 07:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 07:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 08:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 08:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 10:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 11:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 14:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 15:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Agenda GNSO Council Public Meeting in Singapore 22 June 2011 at 14:00 local time
by Glen de Saint Géry June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

DRAFT Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Singapore 22 June 2011. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 06:00 UTC - 14:00 Singapore Coordinated Universal Time:06:00 UTC - see below for local times 14:00 Singapore 02:00 Washington DC, 07:00 London, 08:00 Brussels, Tuesday 21 June (23:00 Los Angeles) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who will be physically absent. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24585 Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: •9 June – will be approved on 22 June 2011. Item 2: Pending Projects – Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (10 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam). 2. 2 Discussion 2. 3 Next steps? 2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 9 (8 –Policy Process Stering Committee (PPSC) removed, Synthesis of WHOIS requirements and drafting team on Community Working Groups (CWGs) added). • Other activities: 7 (9 – Synthesis of WHOIS requirements moved to "GNSO activities", GNSO constitutes reconfirmations removed). • Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committees (SO/AC) Working Groups (WGs): 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 1 (1 – no change). Item 3: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group (20 minutes) The WG published its final report for public comment in February 2011 and the public comment period closed on March 31. After having considered the comments received and modified its report accordingly, the WG is now presenting its final report for Council consideration Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part B Policy Development Process http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 3.1 Update from staff (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/council-briefing-irtp-b-14jun11-en.p… 3.2 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 3.3 Discussion 3.4 Vote Item 4: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Proxy votes (15 minutes) The GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the (see http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf) that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting. It tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting. The OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/osc-recommended-revisions-proxy-voting-14jun11… to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting. Motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 has been submitted for consideration relating to the recommendations from the OSC. 4.1 Update on OSC activities and recommendations on proxy voting from OSC Chair (Philip Sheppard). 4.2 Reading of the motion (Stéphane Van Gelder) 4.3 Discussion 4.4 Vote Break 10 Minutes Item 5: Community Working Groups (20 minutes) Refer to May 19 meeting action items: In response to the action item on Community Working Groups on the GNSO Council agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm, a group of people volunteered to work on this topic. Jonathan Robinson agreed to take the lead in stimulating discussions in view of presenting a report from the drafting team at the Singapore meetings. 5.1 Update from Drafting Team (Jonathan Robinson). http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccwg-icann-framework-14jun11-en.pdf 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next Steps Item 6: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (15 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Information item to provide latest update on the group's work. 6.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair. 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps? Item 7: Post-Expiry Domain Names Recovery (10 minutes) The group has sent its Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration on June 14, 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf Presentation of Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/council-briefing-pednr-14jun11-en.pdf 7.1 Update from chair (Alan Greenberg). 7.2 Discussion Break 10 Minutes Item 8: Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Community Working Group (DSSA) (20 minutes) Information item to provide latest update on the group's work. 8.1 Update from co-chairs (Mikey O'Connor and Jörg Schweiger). 8.2 Discussion 9.2 Discussion Item 9: GNSO improvements – Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (10 minutes) Information item to provide latest update on the group's work. 9.1 Update from chair (Olga Cavalli). 9.2 Discussion Item 10. Any Other Business (5 minutes) Item 11 Open Microphone (30 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 06:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 23:00 Tuesday 21 June Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 00:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 02:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 03:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 03:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 07:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 07:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 08:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 08:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 10:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 11:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 14:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 15:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Councillors, FYI. I have responded to Katim explaining that as the GNSO Council has not approved the report yet, having a call may be premature at this stage. Obviously, I would welcome any other input from any of you. It does seem however that the Board is not clear on the fact that this report has not been approved. 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... Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Katim S. Touray" <kstouray(a)gmail.com> > Date : 23 mai 2011 03:13:11 HAEC > À : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Objet : Follow-up to the second JAS WG report > > 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 > >

10 20

WG: [council] Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 15, 2011

June 15, 2011

Stéphane, I've put Bill Graham as the 3rd GNSO elected board member on cc. Great message, making the entire process and the GNSO position within this process very clear! Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2011 10:48 An: Katim S. Touray; GNSO Council List; Peter Dengate Thrush; Rita Rodin Johnston; Bruce Tonkin Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff; Secretary; Jeremy Beale; Glen de Saint Géry; Karla Valente; Carlton Samuels; Rafik Dammak; ALAC EXCOM; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Betreff: [council] Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting Hello Katim, This is a personal reaction to your message. I am, frankly, aghast that a Board member would send a message indicating that one of ICANN's SOs has been "slow" in acting on a report, in the way you portray the GNSO as having acted with regards to the JAS Milestone Report. At best, this shows a lack of understanding of the basic process that our SO is committed to following, by its own bylaws and by the ICANN bylaws. Immediately after the JAS had forwarded its report to us, it was considered by the GNSO Council at its next meeting. During that meeting, one of the GNSO groups requested the motion be deferred for one meeting. We have a long-standing custom of entertaining such requests. Hence the GNSO considered the motion again at its June 9 meeting, where I am happy to say that the motion (requesting, among other things, that the report be put out for public comment asap) was approved unanimously by the Council. Regardless of your personal interests, I would think that one of your duties as a Board member is to uphold the organisation's bylaws, to respect its SOs and to uphold the processes under which they work. Implying in your message that the GNSO is attempting to scuttle the "entire process of seeking ways... to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants" is not only untrue (as our unanimous vote shows), it is also a serious disregard of the way ICANN and its SOs work. ICANN's bottom-up process is not "pick and choose". Just because, on this issue that you care strongly about, you feel that things are not moving fast enough, this does not justify false allegations of possible attempts by one SO to "scuttle the process". As your message was sent in the context of a call with the Board, the GAC, Staff and ALAC, I consider it very public. Hence it could also be construed as an attempt to discredit the hard work being done by the community of volunteers that the GNSO represents. You request suggestions to the Board "to ensure that progress cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party" (and this is clearly aimed at the GNSO in this case). I would offer one: don't hijack ICANN's core process of working through its SOs and ACs towards the Board! I take your message to be a breach of that process and would personally appreciate reassurance from you that I am mistaken, and that is not what you intend. In order to initiate possible discussion on this at both Council and Board level, I am copying the GNSO Council, Peter as Chairman of the Board and the two GNSO-elected Board members for their possible comments. Thanks, Stéphane Le 14 juin 2011 à 01:33, Katim S. Touray a écrit : Dear all, Thanks so much for your invitation to the call. I certainly was looking forward to joining you on the call, but unfortunately, I have a serious conflict that only came up earlier today (Mon.) I am a consultant helping prepare a strategic action plan for our Fisheries Department in The Gambia, and we were in a workshop all day today discussing a draft plan I presented a few weeks back. We were hoping to go through the entire document today, but we could not. So we agreed to meet again tomorrow to complete our review of the draft document. For this reason, I will not be available to join the call tomorrow, and I am most disappointed by this. Having said that, I hope you have a successful meeting tomorrow. In addition, I would like to say that I hope your recommendations receive the proper attention they deserve, and that in the end, needy new gTLD applicants get the support they need. One issue I would like you to discuss on the call is the timeline for the finalization of the JAS WG report. While I agree that it will help to insist that the AG mention that needy applicants should seek support through the process based the JAS WG report, I think it will help to provide a timeline for the finalization of your report. I'm also troubled by the fact that the GNSO has been rather slow in acting on the JAS WG reports. I fear such a situation might well be construed by many as an effort by the GNSO to scuttle the entire process of seeking ways and means to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants. One important product of such a perception would be that developing countries will feel that ICANN is not sincere when it says (as the Board did in Nairobi last year) that it is interested in launching an inclusive new gTLD program. I need not say that such a perception will also harm ICANN's efforts to strengthen relations with developing countries, and get them on our side on the many issues we'd like to have their support. For this reason, I would like hear what suggestions you have to the board to ensure that progress cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party. Finally, let me say a big "Thank you!!" again to all of you for your tireless and selfless efforts on this matter. Again, I am very sorry I would not be able to join your call, and best wishes in your deliberations. Have a great week, and safe travels to Singapore! Sincerely, Katim On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: Dear All, The JAS Working Group Call with members of the Board, GAC and GNSO invited, is scheduled on Tuesday, 14 June 2001, at 13:00 UTC. We hope you will be able to join us. PROPOSED AGENDA: * Introduction (5 to 10 minutes) Evan Leibovitch - Highlights Second Milestone Report covering short history how it was developed and specific summary points * Board/GAC questions/comments (30 to 40 minutes) - JAS WG would like to listen to individual feedback and receive questions/suggestions from GAC and Board members * Singapore (5 to 10 minutes) Rafik Dammak/Carlton Samuels - Should there be a public meeting with the JAS WG GAC/Board members during the Singapore ICANN Meeting? As a reminder, it would help the JAS WG to better prepare if you could: 1. Advise on the representatives from the Board and GAC that will be able to attend the teleconference. 2. Send us any questions or comments on the Milestone Report in advance, if possible. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dial-in details: Tuesday 14 June 2011 at 13:00 UTC For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=JAS+WG&iso=2011060… <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=JAS+WG&iso=2011060…> ADOBE CONNECT: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/jas/ <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/jas/> Wiki Workspace: https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+… <https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+…> If you require a dial-out, please email staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with you preferred contact number. ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: JAS For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

5 10

New Measures Proposed to Enhance Post-Expiration and Renewal Related Policies and Practices
by Glen de Saint Géry June 15, 2011

June 15, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14jun11-en.htm New Measures Proposed to Enhance Post-Expiration and Renewal Related Policies and Practices GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Presents Final Report 14 June 2011 The GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Working Group has submitted its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf> [PDF, 998 KB] to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council today, 14 June 2011. The PEDNR WG was tasked to address questions in relation to what extent registrants should be able to renew their domain names after they expire. Following review of the comments<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405459/PEDNR+Public+comme…> received on its proposed Final Report, the Working Group now presents its Final Report, which contains 18 recommendations including the following: * Provide a minimum of 8 days after expiration for renewal by registrant (Recommendation #2) * An expired website must explicitly say that registration has expired and instructions on how to recover the registration (Recommendation #3) * The registration agreement must include information on the fees charged for the post-expiration renewal of a domain name (Recommendation #5) * Clear indication of methods used to deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications must be provided (Recommendation #6) * At least two notices prior to expiration need to be sent at set times and one after expiration (Recommendation #7 & #8) * Notifications must not solely be done by methods which require explicit action by the Registrant (Recommendation #9) * All gTLDs and registrars must offer Redemption Grace Period (RGP), with the exception of sponsored gTLDs (Recommendation #13 & 14) * The transfer of a domain name during the RGP should not be allowed (Rec#15) * ICANN should develop educational materials on how to properly steward a domain name and prevent unintended loss (Recommendation #16) * Best practice recommendations: Post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point than to the email address associated with the expired registration (Recommendation #10), provide notice of where notification emails will be sent from (Recommendation #11), encourage registrants to provide a secondary email point of contact (Recommendation #12) Further details and background on each of these and the other recommendations can be found in the PEDNR Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf> [PDF, 998 KB]. The GNSO Council will now consider these recommendations for adoption. Background At the ICANN Meeting in Cairo in November 2008, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. The ALAC request was submitted to ICANN policy staff and the GNSO Council on 20 November 2008. The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf> [PDF, 422 KB] was submitted to the GNSO Council on 5 December 2008. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200905> on 7 May 2009 and tasked a Working Group to answer the following charter questions: * Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; * Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; * Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; * Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); * Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group started its deliberations in July 2009. Further Information: * PEDNR Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf> [PDF, 998 KB] * PEDNR Public Comment Review Tool<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405459/PEDNR+Public+comme…> * PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pednr-proposed-final-report-21feb11-en.p…> [PDF, 972 KB] * PEDNR PDP Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pednr-initial-report-31may10-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.02 MB] * PEDNR WG workspace<https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/> Staff responsible: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

PEDNR Final Report
by Marika Konings June 15, 2011

June 15, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Working Group, please find attached the PEDNR PDP Final Report for your consideration. For your information, the Working Group is scheduled to provide you with an overview of the report and its recommendations on Saturday 18 June from 14.00 – 14.45 (local time) at the ICANN meeting in Singapore. With best regards, Marika

3 4

RE: WG: [council] Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting
by Tim Ruiz June 15, 2011

June 15, 2011

Stephane, Thank you for the well put response and I agree completely. All Councilors, esp. the Chair, should protect the processes that have been so painstakingly put in place. It has nothing to do with bureaucracy, but has to do with defending the integrity of the bottom up processes that ICANN has committed to. If any Councilor disagrees with those they need to attempt to change (not circumvent) them through appropriate mechanisms. In my opinion, we have accepted that responsibility by accepting our appointments to the Council. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: WG: [council] Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 > UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Wed, June 15, 2011 7:24 am > To: Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei(a)cctld.ru> > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Thanks Andrei, > > I think that is consistent with the point I was making. This is not bureaucracy, it is the core function of ICANN. How could the GNSO have been any quicker about considering the JAS milestone report, while still keeping within our rules? > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 15 juin 2011 à 11:36, Andrei Kolesnikov a écrit : > Stephane, IMHO this was an overreaction to the expected signal - we just didn't know the origin. I understand and support your desire to protect council's discipline and methods and don't see any trouble with this one. Just repeating my preaching: let's concentrate on matter rather than procedures and be less bureaucratic :) > > See you soon, > > --andrei > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:14 AM > To: Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW(a)telekom.de > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: WG: [council] Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting > > > > SVG, > > I don�t have any issues with the wording of the email. It is straight out of the AK playbook and the sentiment is spot on. > > However, I am not sure you should have included any other members of the Board given it was an email and not one endorsed by the GNSO Council. > > I fear that, at any given moment, councillors will email individual Board members and create the false impression that the view is indeed one shared by the GNSO � despite any waivers you put in the email itself. > > I think you also need to be careful in your position as Chair as your comments will inevitably be accepted as a general view. > > I like the fact that, as chair, you are prepared to act and protect the processes we have worked hard to develop. It is a great quality to have in a Chair, especially in this environment. Unfortunately, as I have learnt on a number of occasions, this needs to be tempered with perspective and consensus if it is to be put forward. > > Perhaps bringing your point up with the Council or emailing Board members personally and privately would have been more appropriate. > > I am not sure I am helping here. Something just didn�t feel right in the way this was done. > > Thanks and safe travels all. > > #yestonewTLDs > > Adrian Kinderis > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2011 9:02 PM > To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de > Cc: graham(a)isoc.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: WG: [council] Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting > > > > Thanks so much for doing that Wolf. Bill, my sincere apologies for not copying you, it was an oversight on my part. > > Stéphane > > > > > > > Le 14 juin 2011 à 12:57, a écrit : > > > Stéphane, > > I've put Bill Graham as the 3rd GNSO elected board member on cc. > > Great message, making the entire process and the GNSO position within this process very clear! > > > Kind regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder > Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2011 10:48 > An: Katim S. Touray; GNSO Council List; Peter Dengate Thrush; Rita Rodin Johnston; Bruce Tonkin > Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff; Secretary; Jeremy Beale; Glen de Saint Géry; Karla Valente; Carlton Samuels; Rafik Dammak; ALAC EXCOM; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Betreff: [council] Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting > Hello Katim, > > > This is a personal reaction to your message. > > > I am, frankly, aghast that a Board member would send a message indicating that one of ICANN's SOs has been "slow" in acting on a report, in the way you portray the GNSO as having acted with regards to the JAS Milestone Report. > > > > At best, this shows a lack of understanding of the basic process that our SO is committed to following, by its own bylaws and by the ICANN bylaws. Immediately after the JAS had forwarded its report to us, it was considered by the GNSO Council at its next meeting. During that meeting, one of the GNSO groups requested the motion be deferred for one meeting. We have a long-standing custom of entertaining such requests. Hence the GNSO considered the motion again at its June 9 meeting, where I am happy to say that the motion (requesting, among other things, that the report be put out for public comment asap) was approved unanimously by the Council. > > > > Regardless of your personal interests, I would think that one of your duties as a Board member is to uphold the organisation's bylaws, to respect its SOs and to uphold the processes under which they work. > > > > Implying in your message that the GNSO is attempting to scuttle the "entire process of seeking ways... to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants" is not only untrue (as our unanimous vote shows), it is also a serious disregard of the way ICANN and its SOs work. ICANN's bottom-up process is not "pick and choose". Just because, on this issue that you care strongly about, you feel that things are not moving fast enough, this does not justify false allegations of possible attempts by one SO to "scuttle the process". > > > > As your message was sent in the context of a call with the Board, the GAC, Staff and ALAC, I consider it very public. Hence it could also be construed as an attempt to discredit the hard work being done by the community of volunteers that the GNSO represents. > > > > You request suggestions to the Board "to ensure that progress cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party" (and this is clearly aimed at the GNSO in this case). I would offer one: don't hijack ICANN's core process of working through its SOs and ACs towards the Board! I take your message to be a breach of that process and would personally appreciate reassurance from you that I am mistaken, and that is not what you intend. > > > > In order to initiate possible discussion on this at both Council and Board level, I am copying the GNSO Council, Peter as Chairman of the Board and the two GNSO-elected Board members for their possible comments. > > > > > Thanks, > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > Le 14 juin 2011 à 01:33, Katim S. Touray a écrit : > > > Dear all, > > Thanks so much for your invitation to the call. I certainly was looking forward to joining you on the call, but unfortunately, I have a serious conflict that only came up earlier today (Mon.) I am a consultant helping prepare a strategic action plan for our Fisheries Department in The Gambia, and we were in a workshop all day today discussing a draft plan I presented a few weeks back. We were hoping to go through the entire document today, but we could not. So we agreed to meet again tomorrow to complete our review of the draft document. For this reason, I will not be available to join the call tomorrow, and I am most disappointed by this. > > Having said that, I hope you have a successful meeting tomorrow. In addition, I would like to say that I hope your recommendations receive the proper attention they deserve, and that in the end, needy new gTLD applicants get the support they need. > > One issue I would like you to discuss on the call is the timeline for the finalization of the JAS WG report. While I agree that it will help to insist that the AG mention that needy applicants should seek support through the process based the JAS WG report, I think it will help to provide a timeline for the finalization of your report. > > I'm also troubled by the fact that the GNSO has been rather slow in acting on the JAS WG reports. I fear such a situation might well be construed by many as an effort by the GNSO to scuttle the entire process of seeking ways and means to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants. One important product of such a perception would be that developing countries will feel that ICANN is not sincere when it says (as the Board did in Nairobi last year) that it is interested in launching an inclusive new gTLD program. I need not say that such a perception will also harm ICANN's efforts to strengthen relations with developing countries, and get them on our side on the many issues we'd like to have their support. For this reason, I would like hear what suggestions you have to the board to ensure that progress cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party. > > Finally, let me say a big "Thank you!!" again to all of you for your tireless and selfless efforts on this matter. Again, I am very sorry I would not be able to join your call, and best wishes in your deliberations. > > Have a great week, and safe travels to Singapore! > > Sincerely, > > Katim > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > The JAS Working Group Call with members of the Board, GAC and GNSO invited, is scheduled on Tuesday, 14 June 2001, at 13:00 UTC. We hope you will be able to join us. > > PROPOSED AGENDA: > > > > > Introduction (5 to 10 minutes) Evan Leibovitch - Highlights Second Milestone Report covering short history how it was developed and specific summary pointsBoard/GAC questions/comments (30 to 40 minutes) � JAS WG would like to listen to individual feedback and receive questions/suggestions from GAC and Board membersSingapore (5 to 10 minutes) Rafik Dammak/Carlton Samuels � Should there be a public meeting with the JAS WG GAC/Board members during the Singapore ICANN Meeting? > > > As a reminder, it would help the JAS WG to better prepare if you could: > Advise on the representatives from the Board and GAC that will be able to attend the teleconference.Send us any questions or comments on the Milestone Report in advance, if possible.Kind regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dial-in details: Tuesday 14 June 2011 at 13:00 UTC > > > > For other places see: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=JAS+WG&iso=2011060… > > > > > > > > > ADOBE CONNECT: > http://icann.adobeconnect.com/jas/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wiki Workspace: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+… > > > > > > If you require a dial-out, please email staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with you preferred contact number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Participant passcode: JAS > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. > ____________________________________________________________________________ > Dial in numbers: > Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number > > ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 > BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 > BRAZIL 0800-7610651 > CHILE 1230-020-2863 > CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 > 10800-120-1670 > COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 > CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 > DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 > ESTONIA 800-011-1093 > FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 > FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 > FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 > GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 > GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 > HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 > HUNGARY 06-800-12755 > INDIA 000-800-852-1268 > INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 > ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 > ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 > JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 > JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 > LATVIA 8000-3185 > LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 > MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 > MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 > NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 > NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 > PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 > PERU 0800-53713 > PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 > POLAND 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL 8008-14052 > RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 > SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 > SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 > SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 > SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 > SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 > SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 > SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 > TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 > THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 > UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 > URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 > USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 > > *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. > > Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011

All, I'd like to make the following motion and would appreciate a second: << MOTION RE. REVISION OF THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES RELATING TO PROXY VOTING Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf> that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions (see <INSERT LINK>) to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directs Staff produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post this document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on these recommendations, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period. >> The terminology "<INSERT LINK>" in the motion will be replaced with the actual link to the "OSC Recommended Revisions to Proxy Voting Procedures Submitted to GNSO Council 14 June 2011.pdf" (see attached): <<OSC Recommended Revisions to Proxy Voting Procedures Submitted to GNSO Council 14 June 2011.pdf>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Discussion paper on best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names
by Marika Konings June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011

Dear All, With regard to the discussion paper on best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names, in the end ICANN Staff was not able to publish this paper in time for the Singapore meeting, but we wanted to take advantage of the opportunity by providing you with an overview of the initial outline of the discussion paper, based on our current thinking, during the GNSO weekend session. The update to the GNSO Council will be followed by a workshop on Thursday (see http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24623) to allow for community input on this issue. We hope to use the input received to finalize the discussion paper. Attached you will find the slide presentation for the update to the GNSO Council that is scheduled for Saturday 18 June from 11.15 – 12.00 (local time). We look forward to your input, questions and/or comments on this issue. With best regards, Marika

1 0

GNSO Council Background Briefings
by Marika Konings June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011

Dear All, As requested, please find attached the GNSO Council Background Briefings on the IRTP Part B, the PEDNR and the PDP-WT Final Reports, prepared by ICANN Staff. If you have any questions, please let me know. With best regards, Marika

1 0