July 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal
by Tim Ruiz 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

Thank you Glen. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, July 22, 2011 8:56 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, There will be remote participation for all the meetings in Senegal, certainly the GNSO working sessions over the weekend and all other GNSO related meetings. All meetings except those that are noted as closed on the main ICANN schedule have audio streaming. In Nairobi we had the situation where a number of participants took part from remote hub centers and it worked well, so there is no reason to think that it cannot work again if needed in Senegal. Working lunches can also be so arranged that there is remote participation, however social events are a challenge. Remote participations details for all the meetings will sent out to all the groups before the start of the GNSO working sessions on Saturday, 22 October 2011. Please let me know if you need further information. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: mercredi 20 juillet 2011 19:24 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal Glen, Can you provide an update of on the expected availability of remote participation for Senegal? Also to all, if there is any movement toward a US or EU remote participation base, I would be up for that and doing what I could to help cover costs. I think John was asking about this earlier. Any interests? Either way, after further consideration I think I may be attending only remotely. Tim

1 0

FW: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal
by Glen de Saint Géry 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

Forwarded From: Filiz Yilmaz Dear Glen, In Senegal, rolling power outages do occur; however, we are working together with the hotel towards having alternative power supplies like generators etc. ICANN Staff has been assured by the ISP in Senegal, that Internet connectivity is not affected by rolling power outages since they have redundant power systems too. Accordingly we plan to provide full remote participation services as usual in Dakar too. If GNSO's remote participation requirements will be different than the previous ICANN meetings, please let us know these specifics as soon as possible so we can consider these in our planning as necessary and respond back to GNSO. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Sr Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN Begin forwarded message: From: Tim Ruiz Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:24:13 -0700 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal Glen, Can you provide an update of on the expected availability of remote participation for Senegal? Also to all, if there is any movement toward a US or EU remote participation base, I would be up for that and doing what I could to help cover costs. I think John was asking about this earlier. Any interests? Either way, after further consideration I think I may be attending only remotely. Tim

1 0

Remote Participation for Senegal
by Tim Ruiz 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

Glen, Can you provide an update of on the expected availability of remote participation for Senegal? Also to all, if there is any movement toward a US or EU remote participation base, I would be up for that and doing what I could to help cover costs. I think John was asking about this earlier. Any interests? Either way, after further consideration I think I may be attending only remotely. Tim

7 8

Senegal - Letter with State Dept stamp for personal computers etc.?
by Rosette, Kristina 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

Greetings! Have any of the other US folks been told that, in order to avoid paying duty on personal computer, iPad, etc., one has to have a letter that itemizes the equipment, states it's for personal use, and bears a State Department stamp? When I asked if the State Department stamp meant apostille, the person at the Senegalese Embassy didn't know. Before I go (or, more accurately, my assistant goes) chasing this down to find out exactly what is needed, I thought I'd check to see if someone else has. Anyone? K

4 3

Fwd: Updated Background Report for Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA
by Stéphane Van Gelder 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

Councillors, Please see the message below about IPv4 post exhaustion allocation mechanisms. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> > Date : 22 juillet 2011 09:33:32 HAEC > À : "'lesley(a)nominet.org.uk'" <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, 'Heather Dryden' <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, "'junsec(a)wide.ad.jp'" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, 'Raul Echeberria' <raul(a)lacnic.net>, 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' <ocl(a)gih.com>, 'Stéphane Van Gelder' <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "'paf(a)cisco.com'" <paf(a)cisco.com>, 'Louie Lee' <louie(a)louie.net> > Cc : Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, 'ASO Secretariat' <secretariat(a)aso.icann.org> > Objet : Updated Background Report for Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA > > To Chairs of ICANN SOs and ACs, > > FYI and for information to your membership: > > Attached is an updated Background Report for the most recent global policy proposal (the third) regarding recovered IPv4 address space: “Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA”. > > The background report will soon be posted on the ICANN website, updating the previous posting at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26apr11-en.htm . Also note that this and other background reports are now linked from the ASO webpage for such proposals at http://aso.icann.org/global-policy-proposals/ so you can use that page as a portal for all information about these proposals. Special thanks are due to the SSAC Chair, Patrik Fältström, who suggested this improvement! > > Very best regards > Olof > > ------------------- > Olof Nordling > Director, Services Relations > ICANN > 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 > B-1040 Brussels, Belgium > Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 > www.icann.org > >

1 0

Question Regarding Procedure for Responding to Board Request Re: Red Cross/Olympic Names
by Margie Milam 21 Jul '11

21 Jul '11

Dear All, Just wanted to let you know that Staff will provide an answer to the question posed on today's Council call (concerning whether a PDP is required to provide policy advice to the Board on the Red Cross/Olympic Names issue) by mid-next week. All the best, Margie ______ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ______

2 2

Consumer Metrics Motion and Charter
by Glen de Saint Géry 21 Jul '11

21 Jul '11

Dear Councillors, Following on from an action item arising from the GNSO Council call today, attached please find the proposed MOTION TO CREATE JOINT WORKING GROUP ON CONSUMER CHOICE, COMPETITION, AND INNOVATION (CCI) ( also copied below) and the link to the proposed draft charter for the Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation Working Group (CCI) The draft charter is posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-draft-charter-21jul11-en.pdf . MOTION TO CREATE JOINT WORKING GROUP ON CONSUMER CHOICE, COMPETITION, AND INNOVATION (CCI): Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, CCNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011; Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Silicon Valley ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting; Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a joint working group with any of these SO/ACs interested in participating in this joint effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a joint working group be formed to respond to the Board's request, and to produce recommendations to be delivered to each participating SO/AC to respond to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system; Resolved further, that this newly formed joint working group is not authorized to forward its recommendations to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN Board; Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and Resolved further, that the Charter (attached) is hereby approved for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter, a Working Group Report is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011. Resolved further, that in the event that no other SO/AC approves of the terms of this Charter, the CCI WG shall continue to proceed as a GNSO Council only activity. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 21 July 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 21 Jul '11

21 Jul '11

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 21 July, 2011 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110721-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#jul Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 21 July 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 21 Jul '11

21 Jul '11

Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following motions carried unanimously at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 21 July 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion to extend the mandate of the Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) Whereas The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907); and Both the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan and the new gTLD process have been approved by the Board of Directors, bringing into effect the JIG charter condition: Upon adoption of either the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan or the new gTLD process by the ICANN Board of Directors, the WG will be closed, unless both the ccNSO and GNSO Council extend the duration of the JIG WG.; and The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; and The JIG has delivered a first report on Item 1 "Implementation of Single Character IDN TLD" to the ccNSO council and the GNSO council on 30 March 2011; and The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council approved the report on April 7, 2011 and May 10, 2011 respectively; and The final report on the first item of interest was delivered to the ICANN Board on May 11, 2011; and Two issues of common interest remain from the JIG charter; and The JIG WG has discussed and proposed the following target timeline for completion of the remaining items of common interest: * 2011 Jul/Aug: Stocktaking & Development Initial Report for #3 (Public comments Sep 2011) * 2011 Sep/Oct: Completion of Initial Report for #2 (Public comments Nov 2011) * 2011 Nov/Dec: Completion of Draft Final Report for #2 (Public comments Feb/Mar 2012) * 2012 Jan/Feb: Completion of Draft Final Report for #3 (Public comments Feb/Mar 2012) * 2012 Mar: Finalization of Final Report for #2 * 2012 Apr: Finalization of Final Report for #3 * 2012 May-Oct: Implementation Follow up Resolved The JIG Working Group is extended through 2012 to complete work items Two (2. IDN Variant TLDs) and Three (3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs ) from the original charter. 2. Motion on the Adoption of the PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations Whereas on 7 May 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) addressing the following five charter questions: 1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; 2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; 3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; 4. 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); 5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 14 June 2011; Whereas the PEDNR WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; Whereas the PEDNR WG considers all the recommendations listed below as interdependent and has recommended that the GNSO Council should consider these recommendations as such; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors: (A): 1. Define "Registered Name Holder at Expiration" (RNHaE) as the entity or individual that was eligible to renew the domain name registration immediately prior to expiration. If the domain name registration was modified pursuant to a term of the Registration Agreement authorizing the modification of registration data for the purposes of facilitating renewal but not at the explicit request of the registrant, the RNHaE is the entity or individual identified as the registrant immediately prior to that modification. (PEDNR Recommendation #1) 2. For at least 8 consecutive days, at some point following expiration, the original DNS resolution path specified by the RNHaE, at the time of expiration, must be interrupted1 by the registrar, to the extent that the registry permits such interruptions 1, and the domain must be renewable by the RNHaE until the end of that period. This 8-day period may occur at any time following expiration. At any time during the 8 day period, the Registered Name Holder at Expiration may renew the domain with the Registrar and the Registrar, within a commercially reasonable delay, will restore the domain name to resolve to its original DNS resolution path prior to expiration. Notwithstanding, the Registrar may delete the domain at any time during the Autorenew grace period. (PEDNR Recommendation #2) 1 DNS interruption is defined as total Internet service interruption except for an informational web page (only one IP on which only port 80 is active). 3. If at any time after expiration when the Registered Name is still renewable by the RNHaE, the Registrar changes the DNS resolution path to effect a different landing website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to expiration, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to recover the domain. Wording in the policy must make clear that "instructions" may be as simple as directing the RNHaE to a specific web site. (PEDNR Recommendation #3) 4. The RNHaE cannot be prevented from renewing a domain name registration as a result of WHOIS changes made by the Registrar that were not at the RNHaE's request. (PEDNR Recommendation #4) 5. The registration agreement must include or point to any fee(s) charged for the postexpiration renewal of a domain name. If the Registrar operates a website for registration or renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its website, any fee(s) charged for the post-expiration renewal of a domain name or the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. (PEDNR Recommendation #5) 6. The registration agreement and Registrar web site (if one is used) must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications, or must point to the location where such information can be found. What destination address/number will be used must also be specified, if applicable. (PEDNR Recommendation #6) 7. Registrar must notify Registered Name Holder of impending expiration no less than two times. One such notice must be sent one month or 30 days prior to expiration (±4 days) and one must be sent one week prior to expiration (±3 days). If more that two alert notifications are sent, the timing of two of them must be comparable to the timings specified. (PEDNR Recommendation #7) 8. Unless the Registered Name is renewed or deleted by the Registrar, at least one notification to the RNHaE, which includes renewal instructions, must be sent after expiration. (PEDNR Recommendation #8) 9. Notifications of impending expiration must include method(s) that do not require explicit registrant action other than standard e-mail receipt in order to receive such notifications. (Recommendation #9) 10. With the exception of sponsored2 gTLDs, all gTLD Registries shall offer the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). For currently existing unsponsored gTLDs that do not currently offer the RGP, a transition period shall be allowed. All new gTLDs must offer the RGP. As part of the implementation, ICANN Staff should consider the Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal (see http://www.icann.org/en/ meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm) (PEDNR Recommendation #13) 2 An unsponsored TLD operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most affected by the TLD. It should be noted that this distinction is no longer used in the new gTLD program. 11. If a Registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that supports the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP. (PEDNR Recommendation #14) 12. A transfer of a domain name during the RGP should not be allowed. (PEDNR Recommendation #15) 13. In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrars that ICANN has published web content as described in PEDNR Recommendation #16: § Registrars, who have a web presence, must provide a link to the ICANN content on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies. § Registrars may also host similar material adapted to their specific practices and processes. § Registrar must point to the ICANN material in a communication sent to the registrant immediately following initial registration as well as in the mandated annual WHOIS reminder. (PEDNR Recommendation #17) Note: Some of these recommendations may need special consideration in the context of existing provisions in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the proposed Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or exceptions due to fraud, breach of registration agreement or other substantive reasons and the GNSO Council, therefore, recommends that such considerations are taken into account as part of the implementation of these recommendations, once adopted. (B) The GNSO Council recommends the following best practices for promotion by ICANN and the Registrar Stakeholder Group: * If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, and delivery is known to have been interrupted by postexpiration actions, post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists. (PEDNR Recommendation #10) * The notification method explanation (see recommendation #9) should include the registrar's email address from which notification messages are sent and a suggestion that registrants save this email address as a 'safe sender' to avoid notification emails being blocked by spam filter software. (PEDNR Recommendation #11) * Registrars should advise registrants to provide a secondary email point of contact that is not associated with the domain name itself so that in case of expiration reminders can be delivered to this secondary email point of contact. (PEDNR Recommendation #12) (C) The GNSO Council recommends that ICANN, in consultation with Registrars, ALAC and other interested parties, will develop educational materials about how to properly steward a domain name and how to prevent unintended loss. Such material may include registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle and guidelines for keeping domain name records current. (PEDNR Recommendation #16). (D) ICANN Compliance is requested to provide updates to the GNSO Council on a regular basis in relation to the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed recommendations, either in the form of a report that details amongst others the number of complaints received in relation to renewal and/or post-expiration related matters or in the form of audits that assess if the policy has been implemented as intended. (PEDNR Recommendation #18) (E) The GNSO Council shall convene a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation meets the letter and intent of the approved policy. If the PEDNR Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new PEDNR policy recommendations, the PEDNR Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to the members of the PEDNR Working Group. 3. Motion regarding Public Comments on the Policy Development Process Work Team Final Report WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf) on 1 June 2011 to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS the GNSO Council opened a 30-day public comment period on the Final Report (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jun11-en.htm); WHEREAS ICANN Staff produced a Summary and Analysis document of the comments received and posted it at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-pdp-final-report-11j… NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council directs the PDP-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the PDP-WT Final Report as deemed appropriate. The PDP-WT should submit the updated version of the Final Report to the GNSO Council as soon as possible, preferably in time for consideration at its meeting in October 2011. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal
by Tim Ruiz 21 Jul '11

21 Jul '11

The point is, there should be no criticism for your not doing so. And I realize you may not be "intending" to criticize, but the manner you are using to attempt to "understand" sure feels like it :) In any event, a bigger question in my mind is whether these types of meetings are the most effective way to engage all parts of the world. I think it would help to have specific "engagement" goals and metrics for these meetings so that their effectiveness can be evaluated. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> > Date: Thu, July 21, 2011 7:21 am > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org, adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au > > Well as people in my old hoods always said, the personal is political. But if for example I refused to go to theocratic countries that practice torture, execute citizens, consign many others to poverty, invade other countries, contribute to global ecological disaster, and so on, I wouldn't be able to attend meetings in the US�. > > Everyone calculates differently, I guess. > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > It would depend on the location. In some cases it may be principles > > related to personal freedoms. In others, it may be principles related to > > ecology and/or use of resources. And in others it may be a National > > principle, such as in the USA regarding certain countires considered to > > be terrorist friendly. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Re: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal > > > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> > > > Date: Thu, July 21, 2011 6:54 am > > > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > > > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org, adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au > > > > > > Hi Tim > > > > > > Not sure if you were suggesting that I was criticizing someone, but just in case: I wasn't. > > > > > > I am trying to understand the issues, and yes,expressing disappointment with the consequences, which is different and not personal. > > > > > > What for example would be the issue of principle rationale? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > BD > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > > > > > I am sure that there are many reasons why some of us may ultimately not > > > > go, some may be prevented by the issues Adrian pointed out, and others > > > > may choose not to for personal reasons - issues of principle, health > > > > issues, etc. > > > > > > > > But one thing is for sure, none of us are responsible for the conditions > > > > that exist in different parts of the world. And none of us are being > > > > compensated for our participation outside of travel reimbursement for > > > > those who decide to accept it (BTW, I no longer do). So NOT ONE of us > > > > can or should be criticized directly or indirectly for not attending > > > > this meeting, or any other, in person. > > > > > > > > On a different note, these types of ICANN meetings are not necessary to > > > > "engage" all parts of the world. I have no doubt there are much > > > > effective ways to engage various parts of world than these meetings. > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal > > > > > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> > > > > > Date: Thu, July 21, 2011 6:29 am > > > > > To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > > > > > Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" > > > > > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > > So are the insurance policies such that basically all of Africa off limits other than MENA and SA? > > > > > > > > > > We're setting global policies that Africans have to live with, seems unfortunate if engaging them is off limits.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: > > > > > From what I understand it is Ã¯ ¿ ½not ableÃ¯ ¿ ½. Insurance and travel restrictions to the region donÃ¯ ¿ ½t allow it. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, there are many that would Ã¯ ¿ ½not prefer toÃ¯ ¿ ½ given the above. > > > > > > > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > Chief Executive Officer > > > > > AusRegistry International Pty Ltd > > > > > Level 8, 10 Queens Road > > > > > Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 > > > > > Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 > > > > > Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 > > > > > Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com > > > > > Web: www.ausregistry.com > > > > > > > > > > - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:21 PM > > > > > To: Adrian Kinderis > > > > > Cc: Tim Ruiz; council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Adrian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean "to not be able" or "to not prefer"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wondering how high the special barrier some folks face isÃ¯ ¿ ½ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This makes me mad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not mad at Tim, far from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why ICANN continually chooses places that forces key stakeholders and contributors to not be able to participate to the fullest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crazy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HereÃ¯ ¿ ½s an idea. LetÃ¯ ¿ ½s build a remote site and EVERYONE go there... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LA Marriott anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2011 3:24 AM > > > > > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > > > Subject: [council] Remote Participation for Senegal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glen, > > > > > > > > > > Can you provide an update of on the expected availability of remote > > > > > participation for Senegal? > > > > > > > > > > Also to all, if there is any movement toward a US or EU remote > > > > > participation base, I would be up for that and doing what I could to > > > > > help cover costs. I think John was asking about this earlier. Any > > > > > interests? > > > > > > > > > > Either way, after further consideration I think I may be attending only > > > > > remotely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1