July 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#58]
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Jul '11

20 Jul '11

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mercredi 20 juillet 2011 17:05 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#58] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, July 20, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair, Executive Committee Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Mary Wong is unavaialble for the GNSO teleconference on 21 July 2011 Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all motions or other votes Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, July 22, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * William Drake

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Fwd: Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs
by Stéphane Van Gelder 20 Jul '11

20 Jul '11

Councillors, Just as a reminder, in case you or anyone from your respective groups would like to volunteer. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Date : 14 juillet 2011 16:54:19 HAEC > À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > Cc : "mike.silber(a)icann.org Silber" <mike.silber(a)icann.org> > Objet : [soac-discussion] Fwd: Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs > > > Dear Community Leaders, > > This is a friendly reminder that yesterday was the last day for the call to name volunteers to take part in the Focus Group and we only heard back from two groups; ALAC and Registries Stakeholder Group. > > I hope you can reach out to your groups again and ask whether there are interested people to work with us in this group. We believe their feedback will be most valuable in this process and having a good representation of the various groups of the ICANN community within the Focus Group will be beneficial overall. > > Please let us know before the beginning of next week as the Focus Group is planned to start the work by 20 July 2011. > > Thanks for your support and kind regards. > > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> >> Date: June 30, 2011 6:08:49 PM GMT+02:00 >> To: "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> >> Cc: "mike.silber(a)icann.org Silber" <mike.silber(a)icann.org> >> Subject: Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs >> >> Dear Community Leaders, >> >> >> I communicated to you in Singapore that we would like to receive your support in forming a Focus Group to provide some initial feedback on two specific Public Comment implementation proposals relating to ATRT Recommendations 15, 16 and 17. >> >> This email is intended to provide additional details to help you in identifying individuals to participate in this activity. >> >> Purpose: To help ICANN Staff assess the usability and viability of certain implementation constructs related to the Public Comment process as recommended by the ATRT. >> >> Team Members: We would prefer to keep the Focus Group relatively small and are therefore requesting one representative from of each ICANN SO, AC or SG. >> >> Methodology: Due to the challenges in scheduling telephone calls/meetings and considering the nature of the topics/questions, our plan is that the group will interact and collaborate via a dedicated space within ICANN's Confluence Wiki environment. Details (e.g., links, login information) will be sent to the volunteers separately. At this time, no meetings are planned. >> >> Duration: We anticipate that the feedback period will last one month from 20 July through 19 August at which point the dedicated Wiki space will be closed. >> >> Content: ICANN Staff will outline two current proposals to the Focus Group and collect initial feedback (via the Wiki). The two specific topics that the Focus Group's will be asked to provide feedback are: >> >> Topic 1: Stratification/Prioritization of Public Comments >> >> Topic 2. Comment/Reply Structure for Public Comments >> >> Scope: The Focus Group will be asked specific questions concerning the topics listed above and feedback/responses will be collected via the Wiki. The ATRT Recommendations have been reviewed by the ICANN Community and approved by the ICANN Board; therefore, the Focus Group will not be asked to validate the ATRT Recommendations themselves. >> >> Outcomes: The Wiki collaboration and discussion threads will be used by Staff to inform its planning concerning the implementation topics listed above. Staff does not plan to issue any written reports or summaries of the Focus Group's deliberations; however, the Wiki may be opened for public read access once the work is completed. Elements of the feedback may be incorporated into a formal Public Comment solicitation that will deal with these same topics circa September 2011. >> >> I hope you find the above information helpful in identifying and selecting candidates to help with this feedback process. >> >> We hope to hear back from you with one volunteer contact detail from your group latest by 13 July 2011, in order to start the activity as outlined above. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Filiz Yilmaz >> >> >> Sr Dir Participation and Engagement >> ICANN >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Topic for Senegal Board-GNSO Council Meeting
by Tim Ruiz 20 Jul '11

20 Jul '11

Thanks Bruce. I think the concerns I expressed in Singapore, and some of those of others, relates to transparency, accountability, and institutional confidence as well as good governance. We don't know all the facts in regards to Peter's situation, but as it appears now on the surface it seems there would be a good case for someone to file for Indepedent Review of the Board decisions in Singapore related to new gTLDs. That would be unfortunate, especially if it turns out that it could all have been avoided by a simple disclosure of potential conflicts. In any event, I agree that it may be helpful to review the existing documents you mention and offer comments/advice on how to improve them to avoid this type of situation. I am also still concerned about what internal policies are in place to protect against undue influence when the door revolves (people moving back and forth between Staff/Board and the community), especially as it applies to contracted parties. I don't really care that Peter went to work for M&M, but I do care about what protection there is from Peter using his connections and previous position to influence Staff or Board. IMO, there should be clear guidelines on how/when current Staff/Board interacts with Ex-Staff and Ex-Board and making sure that when/if it occurs it is disclosed. I think the same should be true in reverse, although some of the protections may be somewhat different. And as was also discussed in Singapore, there is a real danger of ICANN's Staff being recruited by the parties it is contracted with. Is it time that ICANN minimize this potential? It is fairly standard for two contracted parties in the USA to agree not to actively recruit each others staff during the term of the agreement. That seems like a reasonable approach to me. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Topic for Senegal Board-GNSO Council Meeting > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > Date: Wed, July 20, 2011 7:20 am > To: "GNSO Council List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: "John Jeffrey" <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, "Steve Crocker" > <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > > Hello All, > > Just to elaborate a little further on current rules, the Board also has a code of conduct and a conflicts policy. > > > Code of conduct is available at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/bod-code-of-conduct-21a… > > Code of conduct guidelines at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/bod-code-of-conduct-gui… (this was something updated recently to deal with confidentiality guidelines). > > The conflicts policy is available at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-30jul09-en.htm > > > As chair of the Board's Governance Committee - we are constantly evolving such documents, and beginning to extend the base documents with operating guidelines. > > As a result of this recent case, I welcome suggestions for how any of these documents can be improved. > > Each Board director is also required to make an annual statement of interest, which includes the following question: > > " An existing or potential ownership, professional or investment interest in, or employment or any other Compensation arrangement with, any entity whose business or operation has been or will be directly affected by a decision or action of ICANN, including by reason of a potential or planned application or possible agreement for operation of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) or delegation of a country code internationalized domain name (ccIDN);" > > We do have processes for dealing with a potential conflict - including an undisclosed conflict by a currently sitting Board member. We don't have an explicit process for dealing with any cases that come to light after a director leaves the Board. > > A short overview of statements of interest is maintained at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/board/summary-board-soi-en.htm > > and the 24 June version is available at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/board/summary-soi-24jun11-en.htm > > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Updated Council agenda 21 July 2011 at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Jul '11

20 Jul '11

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated Council agenda for 21 July, 2011 at 11:00 UTC. The main updates that have been made are moving all the agenda items requiring a vote to the beginning of the agenda and placing the IRTP B recommendation #3 as a separate item. The Wiki agenda, (which has the latest updates) is posted at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+July+2011 The motions before Council are posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011 Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 July 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-21jul11-en.htm 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 11:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:11:00 UTC - see below for local times (04:00 Los Angeles, 07:00 Washington DC, 12:00 London, 13:00 Brussels, 20:00 Tokyo; 21:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest Rosemary Sinclair http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/sinclair-soi-22jun11.htm 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 22 June 2011 Council minutes – approved on 6 July 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-22jun11-en.htm Item 2: Update to Pending Projects List – Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group (5 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 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 10 (9 – Open Council Meeting DT added). • Other activities: 9 (7 – GNSO toolkit of services removed, IRTP B rec 8, IRTP B rec 9 and IRTP C issues report added). • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (1 – IRTP B remaining recs added). Item 3: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group - recommendation # 3 (10 minutes) Refer to Motion 1 to address IRTP Part B recommendation #3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011 3.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: Joint ccNSO-GNSO Internationalized Domain Names Working Group (JIG) (10 minutes) Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting: the JIG's current charter does not allow it to continue working, yet the JIG reported to the GNSO Council in Singapore that it still has some work to do. A motion is being submitted to extend the JIG's charter Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011 4.1 Reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) (15 minutes) The group has sent its Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration on June 14, 2011 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 A motion has been made to approve this report. Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011 5.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 5. 2 Discussion 5. 3 Vote Item 6: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (10 minutes) The group has put its proposed Final Report out for public comment http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf A public comment period closed on July 9. Summary of public comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-pdp-final-report-11j… A motion has been made for the Council to consider this report. Refer to motion 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011 6.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes) Following recent discussions on the matter, the Council is being asked to consider a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. This motion is being presented for discussion only at this meeting, in order to give the Council and its SGs sufficient time to properly assess it. Refer to motion 5 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011 7.1 Update from Staff and reading of potential motion 7.2 Discussion Item 8: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 4.d): The review of additional community feedback, advice from ALAC, and recommendations from the GNSO following their receipt of a Final Report from the JAS Working Group (requested in time to allow staff to develop an implementation plan for the Board’s consideration at its October 2011 meeting in Dakar, Senegal), with the goal of having a sustainable applicant support system in place before the opening of the application window. At its Singapore wrap-up meeting, the GNSO Council identified the following timeline if the Board request is to be answered in time: For the Board to approve the JAS implementation plan in Dakar on October 28, the Staff must publish all documents for the Dakar meeting 15 business days before Dakar, so October 7. So that means the Council must approve the JAS Final Report at its September 8 meeting. This discussion item aims at identifying how these objectives can best be met. Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm 8.1 Discussion 8.2 Possibility of a special meeting of the Council in August (first week of the month) on the JAS final report. Item 9: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b): Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest. As an action item, the GNSO therefore needs to look at providing the requested advice or at least consider whether it wants to provide advice and if so, how should these entities' names be handled at the second level in new gTLDs? Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm 9.1 Discussion 9.2 Next steps Item 10: Interaction with ccNSO (10 minutes) Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting: the ccNSO and the GNSO agreed to try and work together more closely on some projects of common interest. Two were discussed: the work the ccNSO is currently doing on ICANN's strategic plan and budget, and the work the GNSO is currently doing on CWGs. This is a discussion item to ascertain how to push these two initiatives forward. 10.1 Discussion 10.2 Next steps Item 11. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 11.1 Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation Working Group (Rosemary Sinclair) Discussion of motion to approve a charter for a Joint Community Working Group to be made at the next Council meeting to respond to the Board's Cartagena request for advice from the GNSO, GAC, ALAC and CCNSO. 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) 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 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-5+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 12:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 21:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 3

Re: [council] Topic for Senegal Board-GNSO Council Meeting
by William Drake 19 Jul '11

19 Jul '11

Hi Jonathan, They redirected and Council failed to push back. I actually thought it was pretty impressively executed. Was the PDT news a surprise to anyone? I had assumed this was precisely what Kristina wanted to talk about… Bill On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > My perspective on the board discussion in Singapore was that it was very unsatisfactory. > > We went down the path of discussing or possibly the board responded by discussing the issues around confidential information and the effectiveness or not of staff contracts in dealing with this. > > My understanding was that the issue we had intended to discuss was conflicts of interest, particularly for ICANN board and senior staff / executive management, and what if any, effective corporate governance was in place to manage and deal with this. > > If I am correct in my understanding, we were either insufficiently clear in communicating our topic of discussion or alternatively, the board was unwilling or unable to discuss it. Regardless, I agree with Stéphane that there was a distinct sense of “closed topic”. > > The big question really revolves around corporate governance best practice at ICANN. How well is this understood, managed and kept current? > > Trust that this input provides a little further insight. > > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: 19 July 2011 07:14 > To: Rosemary Sinclair > Cc: Rosette, Kristina; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [council] Topic for Senegal Board-GNSO Council Meeting > > I agree that clarifications would be useful here. > > We discussed the revolving door issue with the Board in Singapore. I don't know about others, but I got the feeling the Board felt that all that there was to say on the subject had been said. > > Of course at the time we were talking about ICANN Staff, not Board members. > > So Kristina and others, if you could be more specific on the actual wording of the topic you are requesting for the Dakar agenda, I'm sure that would be useful to Jeff, who is handling our agenda for Dakar. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > > Le 19 juil. 2011 à 00:12, Rosemary Sinclair a écrit : > > > Hi Kristina et al > > Would you mind giving us some more background on the concerns here? > > I might not be thinking about the right problem... > > Thanks > > Rosemary > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 19/07/2011, at 12:12 AM, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> wrote: > > I'd like to see the revolving door topic on the agenda again, please. > > http://www.tldh.org/2011/07/peter-dengate-thrush-appointed-as-executive-cha… > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6304 (20110718) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com

2 1

Topic for Senegal Board-GNSO Council Meeting
by Rosette, Kristina 19 Jul '11

19 Jul '11

I'd like to see the revolving door topic on the agenda again, please. http://www.tldh.org/2011/07/peter-dengate-thrush-appointed-as-executive-cha…

4 4

RE: [council] Topic for Senegal Board-GNSO Council Meeting
by Tim Ruiz 18 Jul '11

18 Jul '11

+1 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Topic for Senegal Board-GNSO Council Meeting > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Mon, July 18, 2011 9:10 am > To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > I'd like to see the revolving door topic on the agenda again, please. > > http://www.tldh.org/2011/07/peter-dengate-thrush-appointed-as-executive-cha… >

2 1

Public Comment Forum on the UDRP Preliminary Issue Report Extended until 22 July 2011
by Margie Milam 18 Jul '11

18 Jul '11

Dear All, We were experiencing technical difficulties with the Public Comment Forum on the UDRP Preliminary Issue Report last week. As a result of this, and a request from ALAC for an extension of time, we will be closing this Public Comment Forum on 22 July 2011 (23:59 UTC). For more information, and to submit comments, please see: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/prelim-report-udrp-27may11-en.htm Best Regards, Margie _____ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _____

1 0

Fwd: Suggested election time lines
by Stéphane Van Gelder 16 Jul '11

16 Jul '11

Councillors, As the Dakar meeting looms, one of the items we must cover is the elections of the next Council Chair (the VCs are house-specific and therefore do not need to be determined here). You will remember that last year's elections gave rise to some debate, and that the Council felt it would be useful to plan ahead a little more for this year. To start this process along, I have been working with Glen to produce two possible scenarios for running the elections. These are attached. My thanks to Glen for her hard work on this. As you will see from the attached, the options we have looked at are to try and address the wish that was expressed by some last year that it be the new Council that elect the Chair. There are some scheduling issues to address, and if the Council decides to elect its new Chair in Dakar, then we will have to work closely with those SGs electing new Councillors to ensure that those elections are done in plenty of time to allow for the Chair election to happen. We also ask the question, if we have an election in Dakar (rather than the 2nd option of an electronic ballot beforehand) of whether the vote should be by open or secret ballot. Please let us have your comments on these proposals. Thanks, Stéphane

8 19

RE: AW: [council] Re: Suggested election time lines
by Tim Ruiz 15 Jul '11

15 Jul '11

+1 Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: AW: [council] Re: Suggested election time lines > From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de > Date: Fri, July 15, 2011 1:46 am > To: <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > I understand the issues raised by the NCSG. > However I'm opposed to postpone council chair elections. I'm also not a > friend of mixing up competencies of different institutions (SG/constituency and > council). My proposal (for this time) covered by the rules and > bylaws: > > - take option 1 of Stéphane's paper: this allows for 3 > weeks more time of candidate nomination than option 2 > - in case new councillors > can't be seated in time let the incumbents vote > > This discussion arises only from the requirement that new > council members should be given a chance to vote and the time constraints > between chair election and new council seating. To my knowledge it was not > covered during the bylaws and rules of procedure review. It could be an agenda > item for the SCI to find a viable solution for the future - if the council so > wishes. > > > > Kind regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von > Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 > 01:12 > Cc: Council GNSO > Betreff: RE: [council] Re: > Suggested election time lines > > > > Hello - I can try to explain some of the issues. NCSG intends fully to > comply with and meet all the mandated deadlines; however, the Council should > know that we are probably laboring under greater pressure than most of the > other groups. This is because the new NCSG Charter was just approved by the > Board in Singapore, and we've also had a large number of new members (both > directly into the SG and through the newly-approved Not for Profit Operational > Concerns (NPOC) Constituency). We will also have to elect (or re-elect, as may > happen) 4 Councilors, including transitioning from having 3 Board appointed > Councilors to all Councilors being elected by the SG (i.e. under the approved > Charter, elections for Council seats are SG-wide, not via Constituencies), > which can happen only procedurally after the new Charter is formally approved > and accepted by the SG membership. > Mind you, I'm not making an early excuse for delay - like I said, we > (especially our SG Chair and Executive Committee) are working hard to make > sure not only that all relevant time lines are met, but that the elections are > sufficiently well-publicized so that we will have good candidates coming > forward (from various geographical regions, as mandated by our Charter) and > that all SG members (especially the newer ones) know about the elections and > can participate fully. > Hopefully this explains some of the concerns that have been raised and > gives the Council a sense of what we are having to do within NCSG. > > Cheers > Mary > > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor > of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > 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 > As > of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the > University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New > Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and > now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more > information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit > law.unh.edu > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > From: > > > > Adrian Kinderis > <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > > > > To: > > > Stéphane Van > Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Neuman, Jeff" > <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > > > > CC: > > > Wendy Seltzer > <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Council GNSO > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > Date: > > > > 7/14/2011 5:59 PM > > > > > Subject: > > > > RE: [council] Re: > Suggested election time lines > > > I agree with Jeff and > SVG. > > How typical of our GNSO/ ICANN psyche that we instantly look > to move a deadline rather than address the issue of > tardiness... > > Adrian Kinderis > > > -----Original > Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van > Gelder > Sent: Friday, 15 July 2011 7:42 AM > To: Neuman, Jeff > Cc: > Wendy Seltzer; Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Suggested > election time lines > > > Agree with Jeff that extending is not an > option. If SGs find they cannot elect their new reps in time for Dakar, > then they should look to extend the terms of their own Councillors so as > not to impact the bylaw-mandated leadership election > timeline. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Envoyé de mon > iPhone4 > > Le 14 juil. 2011 à 21:09, "Neuman, Jeff" > <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> a écrit : > > > The election > timelines are set forth in the Bylaws. Given that we still have 3 > months until the annual meeting, shouldn't that be enough time to get > everything done? > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Neustar, Inc. > / Vice President, Law & Policy > > Please note new > address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA > 20166 > > > > > > -----Original > Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer > > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 3:05 PM > > To: Stéphane Van > Gelder > > Cc: Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] Re: > Suggested election time lines > > > > > > NCSG is also > working on its Council elections. > > > > A third option would > be to postpone our Council elections (and briefly > > extend the > terms of current officers) if some SGs need a slightly longer > > > window to complete their Councillor elections first. > > > > > --Wendy > > > > On 07/14/2011 07:52 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder > wrote: > >> Thanks Wendy for your > comments. > >> > >> Yes that is correct, we designed > option 1 to address the points made at the previous election and allow > for the new Council to elect its Chair. > >> > >> However, > I think it's worth stressing that for this option to be viable, we need > to be sure that all SGs that are due to replace Councillors will have > done so in plenty of time for this vote to take > place. > >> > >> So my message was also a request to you, > as representatives of your groups, to let the Council leadership and > secretariat know if your own individual elections would be done in > time? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > Stéphane > >> > >> > >> > >> Le 13 juil. > 2011 à 18:34, Wendy Seltzer a écrit > : > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks for getting the > conversation started Stéphane, > >>> > >>> Does the > second, electronic, option assume that the voters would be > the > >>> old Councillors, since the new ones will not be > seated until the end of > >>> the AGM? If so, I would > strongly support option 1, to give the > >>> Councillors who > will be serving under the chair an opportunity to vote > >>> > in the Chair's election. > >>> > >>> > --Wendy > >>> > >>> On 07/13/2011 12:17 PM, Stéphane > Van Gelder wrote: > >>>> > Councillors, > >>>> > >>>> As a follow-up to > this, please see attached a slightly modified note. The change is just > to clarify one of the election procedure > scenarios. > >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> > Stéphane > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Le 11 juil. 2011 à 17:18, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit > : > >>>> > >>>>> > Councillors, > >>>>> A t > >>>>> As the > Dakar meeting looms, one of the items we must cover is the elections of > the next Council Chair (the VCs are house-specific and therefore do not > need to be determined > here). > >>>>> > >>>>> You will remember > that last year's elections gave rise to some debate, and that the > Council felt it would be useful to plan ahead a little more for this > year. > >>>>> > >>>>> To start this > process along, I have been working with Glen to produce two possible > scenarios for running the elections. These are attached. My thanks to > Glen for her hard work on > this. > >>>>> > >>>>> As you will see > from the attached, the options we have looked at are to try and address > the wish that was expressed by some last year that it be the new Council > that elect the Chair. There are some scheduling issues to address, and > if the Council decides to elect its new Chair in Dakar, then we will > have to work closely with those SGs electing new Councillors to ensure > that those elections are done in plenty of time to allow for the Chair > election to happen. > >>>>> > >>>>> We > also ask the question, if we have an election in Dakar (rather than the > 2nd option of an electronic ballot beforehand) of whether the vote > should be by open or secret > ballot. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let us > have your comments on these > proposals. > >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> > Stéphane > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >

1 0