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 17, 2011

June 17, 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