September 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2011

Oct. 15, 2011

Dear All, As you know, the Nominating Committee (Nom Com) has selected two Nom Com Appointees (NCAs), Lanre Ajayi and Thomas Rickert, to serve on the GNSO Council for the upcoming year. Thomas Rickert has requested to be assigned to the Contracted Parties House (CPH) and the CPH has formally agreed that Thomas is a voting member in the CPH. As it has traditionally been the norm that the previous year's non-voting NCA becomes a voting NCA, we expect that Carlos Aguirre will be assigned to the NCPH this year, and Lanre Ajayi will be assigned the non-voting seat. Is this correct? Due to the close proximity of the Dakar meeting and the need to finalize organizational aspects of the meeting, the GNSO Council Secretariat would appreciate being informed of the NCPH NCA assignment no later than 30 September 2011 at 22:00 UTC. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

7 11

Regarding Ethics and conflicts of interest
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 6, 2011

Oct. 6, 2011

Hello All, I have noticed a few newspaper articles and posting on forums like CircleID on how ICNAN is reviewing its policies for Conflicts of Interest and Ethics. I just want to let you know that this is a topic of active discussion on the Board. For example, at the Board Governance Committee meeting on 15 August 2011: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-bgc-15aug11-en.htm " 5.Ethics and Conflicts of Interest - The BGC began a discussion on the issues surrounding Board and staff ethics issues. The BGC discussed that as a private sector organization, ICANN is limited in its ability to place restrictions on future employment, though there are many things that ICANN can do to address these concerns, such as continued strict adherence and enforcement of confidentiality provisions. The BGC noted that the conflicts/ethics discussion has been going on within ICANN prior to the approval of the new gTLD program. The BGC agreed that community discussion should occur in Dakar about this issue. Action: Staff to draft proposed guidelines for Board members and staff members, to provide additional information and guidance through the use of examples, for BGC consideration at its September workshop, in preparation for community discussion in October. " This was topic discussed further in the Board Governance Committee last week on Thursday 15 September (I will post information on the resolutions once they are posted on the Board Governance Committee website), and with the Board as a whole on Saturday 17 September. You will see from the minutes above - that this will be a discussion item in Dakar. So just want to reassure that the concerns raised by members of the GNSO Council in Singapore are being followed up, and there will be more to report in Singapore. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 2

RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters?
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 30, 2011

Sept. 30, 2011

Understood. Not sure it was ever communicated that way to the Council as a whole, and since it doesn't even mention sTLDs it's difficult to see how it even comes close to fulfilling what was asked for. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the > process for amendments to sTLD charters? > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date: Fri, September 30, 2011 8:17 am > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "krosette(a)cov.com" <krosette(a)cov.com>, > "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > You are not going to get a disagreement from me that this paper is fundamentally flawed, but I am only conveying the answer I got when I asked the question back in March, that staff thought this paper addressed the particular resolution Kristina pointed to. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:33 AM > To: Neuman, Jeff > Cc: krosette(a)cov.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters? > > > Jeff, > > That is not the briefing paper for amending sTLD charters. It refers > only to the new Community gTLDs. There are some similarities between > sTLDs and Community gTLDs, but there are major differences in their > structure and how they were/are allocated. IMO, amending a sTLD charter > is a fundamentally different issue than the Community gTLD Change > discussed in the paper you refer to. > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process > > for amendments to sTLD charters? > > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > > Date: Thu, September 29, 2011 5:04 pm > > To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, > > "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > Kristina, > > Ã� > > A paper was posted on February 21, 2011 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explantory-memo-community-change-r…) which was heavily objected to on a number of grounds by the RySG.Ã� In our view, there were a number of flawed assumptions in there as well as too heavy a hand by ICANN.Ã� > > > > I am not sure if someone from staff forwarded this to you, so I thought I would and send it to the Council. Ã� At a few of the meetings, I brought this up at the council level (in San Francisco in particular), but the Council did not seem interested in taking it up at the time (or maybe they weren’t paying attention J) > > Ã� > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > > > > Ã� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > Ã� > > > > Ã� > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:48 AM > > To: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' > > Subject: [council] Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters? > > > > > > Ã� > > Ã� > > > > All, > > > > Ã� > > > > I was just reading the BGC's December 9, 2010 recommendation on the .jobs Charter Compliance Coalition reconsideration request and came across this footnote on page 12:Ã� > > > > Ã� > > > > Ã� > > > > 4 The BGC also thinks that the Board should address the need for a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or Stated Purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD. Because such a process may impact gTLDs greatly and is a policy issue, the GNSO is the natural starting point for evaluating such a process. We therefore further recommend that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced.Ã� > > > > Ã� > > > > I don't recall receiving any such briefing paper.Ã� Did we receive one?Ã� If so, would the relevant staff person mind sending me a copy of it?Ã� Thanks! > > > > Ã� > > > > K > > > > Ã� > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters?
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 30, 2011

Sept. 30, 2011

Jeff, That is not the briefing paper for amending sTLD charters. It refers only to the new Community gTLDs. There are some similarities between sTLDs and Community gTLDs, but there are major differences in their structure and how they were/are allocated. IMO, amending a sTLD charter is a fundamentally different issue than the Community gTLD Change discussed in the paper you refer to. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process > for amendments to sTLD charters? > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date: Thu, September 29, 2011 5:04 pm > To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, > "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Kristina, > > A paper was posted on February 21, 2011 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explantory-memo-community-change-r…) which was heavily objected to on a number of grounds by the RySG. In our view, there were a number of flawed assumptions in there as well as too heavy a hand by ICANN. > > I am not sure if someone from staff forwarded this to you, so I thought I would and send it to the Council. At a few of the meetings, I brought this up at the council level (in San Francisco in particular), but the Council did not seem interested in taking it up at the time (or maybe they weren’t paying attention J) > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:48 AM > To: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' > Subject: [council] Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters? > > > > > > All, > > > > I was just reading the BGC's December 9, 2010 recommendation on the .jobs Charter Compliance Coalition reconsideration request and came across this footnote on page 12: > > > > > > 4 The BGC also thinks that the Board should address the need for a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or Stated Purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD. Because such a process may impact gTLDs greatly and is a policy issue, the GNSO is the natural starting point for evaluating such a process. We therefore further recommend that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced. > > > > I don't recall receiving any such briefing paper. Did we receive one? If so, would the relevant staff person mind sending me a copy of it? Thanks! > > > > K > > > > >

2 1

Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters?
by Rosette, Kristina Sept. 30, 2011

Sept. 30, 2011

All, I was just reading the BGC's December 9, 2010 recommendation on the .jobs Charter Compliance Coalition reconsideration request and came across this footnote on page 12: 4 The BGC also thinks that the Board should address the need for a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or Stated Purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD. Because such a process may impact gTLDs greatly and is a policy issue, the GNSO is the natural starting point for evaluating such a process. We therefore further recommend that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced. I don't recall receiving any such briefing paper. Did we receive one? If so, would the relevant staff person mind sending me a copy of it? Thanks! K

2 2

GNSO Council meeting agenda 6 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

Dear All, Please find the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October 2011 at 15:00 UTC posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+06+October+2… and on the GNSO website at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-06oct11-en.htm Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 6 October 2011. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-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 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (08:00 Los Angeles, 11:00 Washington DC, 16:00 London, 17:00 Brussels, Friday 7 October 00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 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 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 22 September minutes –approved on October 2011. Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes) Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. 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 (9 - no change) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2– no change). Item 3: Amendments to RAA (10 minutes) In its ongoing work on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), and more specifically to identify potential amendments to the RAA, the Council is considering a motion to approve an amended process to develop a new form of RAA termed "process B". Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 3.1 Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (10 minutes) As part of the GNSO improvements, the PPSC's PDP WT has produced a final report on how the GNSO's policy develop process should be handled. Refer to PDP-WT Final Report This report has been put out for public comment and is now being presented to the Council for approval. Refer to motion 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes) At its July 21 meeting, the Council was presented with a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. This motion was discussed at the meeting and should now be considered by Council. It should be noted that the motion made before the Council today has been slightly reworked as compared to the motion shown at the July 21 meeting (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011) Motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting. Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 5.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity (10 minutes) A motion is being made to recommend action by the ICANN Board with regards to addressing Internet-based criminal activity. Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting Refer to motion: 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 6.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Whois Survey Drafting Team (10 minutes) A motion is being submitted to approve the formation of a Whois Survey Drafting Team. Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe…> deferred from 22 September Council meeting Refer to motion: 5. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 7.1 Reading of the motion (Wendy Seltzer) 7. 2 Discussion 7. 3 Vote Item 8: 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): Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm 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. The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some guidance: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-dryden-11aug11-en.pdf On September 18, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council providing the following advice on this topic with regard to a possible UDRP<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-udrp-14sep11-en.p…> and the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names.<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11…> During the Council's Sept 22 meeting, the following points were highlighted: • A request to Staff to confer with ICANN General Counsel on the status of the advice that the GNSO receives from the GAC? • This is a proposed topics to discuss with the GAC at the joint GAC- Council meeting in Dakar. • Identify questions or requests for clarification and communicate these to the GAC well in advance of the joint meeting so as to have a meaningful and constructive discussion. Item 9: Interaction with ccNSO (10 minutes) Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting, deferred from the July 21 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. 9.1 Discussion 9.2 Next steps Item 10: Open Council Meeting Drafting Team (10 minutes) At its Singapore meeting, the Council decided to review the way it’s Open Meetings are organized. This is a discussion item to review the work of the team so far and identify any changes that might be made in time for the GNSO Council's next Open Meeting, in Dakar on October 26. 10.1 Update (XXX) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next steps Item 11: Review of proposed agenda for Dakar meeting (10 minutes) Discussion item on the GNSO's proposed agenda for the Dakar meeting week, including key points and meetings with other stakeholders and groups. 11.1 Review of draft agenda (Jeff Neuman) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next steps Item 12: Best practices discussion paper<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1…> (10 minutes) Following a Council request, Staff has prepared a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices for registrars and registries<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1…>. The best practices are to help address the abusive registrations of domain names. Staff suggests that the Council open a public comment period. A workshop could also be held on this topic during the Dakar ICANN meeting week. 12.2 Discussion 12.3 Next steps Item 13. Any Other Business (5 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-operating-procedures-22sep11-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 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 02:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion
by john＠crediblecontext.com Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

2 1

RE: [council] CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion
by john＠crediblecontext.com Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

2 1

RE: [council] CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

Jonathan - to clarify, you say below "It will be very helpful to have this motion tabled and, ideally, approved ahead of Dakar." Do you mean it will be helpful to NOT have the motion tabled. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:16 PM To: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: [council] CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion All, Please find attached, documents relating to a proposed motion for our forthcoming council meeting on 6th October 2011. It will be very helpful to have this motion tabled and, ideally, approved ahead of Dakar. In addition, I believe that it is a primarily administrative piece of business for the GNSO to deal with this motion. Accordingly, I respectfully request a waiver of the 8 day rule which this submission has breached by less than 24 hours. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0

CCWG-DT: Final Charter and Draft Motion
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

All, Please find attached, documents relating to a proposed motion for our forthcoming council meeting on 6th October 2011. It will be very helpful to have this motion tabled and, ideally, approved ahead of Dakar. In addition, I believe that it is a primarily administrative piece of business for the GNSO to deal with this motion. Accordingly, I respectfully request a waiver of the 8 day rule which this submission has breached by less than 24 hours. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0

NORC at the University of Chicago Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification Study
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

http://blog.icann.org/2011/09/norc-at-the-university-of-chicago-selected-to… NORC at the University of Chicago Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification Study by LIZ GASSTER on SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 I am delighted to report that ICANN has engaged NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification study, seeking a foundational understanding of the types of entities and kinds of potentially commercial activities observed among gTLD domain names. NORC intends to use Whois Registrant contact data to classify the kinds of entities that register a representative sample of gTLD domain names, including natural persons, legal persons and Privacy or Proxy service providers. NORC will then analyze Internet content associated with each sampled domain to classify the entities that appear to be using those domains, along with any observable potentially commercial activities. Draft study results are expected to be published in mid-2012. Entity and activity classifications are not predefined but will be developed during the study, based on sampled data, to help the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and ICANN community better understand the variety of possible correlations that may emerge. ICANN looks forward to working with NORC to publish statistics that describe how various gTLD Registrants identify themselves, in order to inform future gTLD Whois policy discussions. To learn more about the Whois Registrant Identification Study or other studies now being conducted at the request of the GNSO Council, please visit http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated Final PDP-WT Report for Council Consideration and Motion
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

All, Please find attached the final PDP-WT documents (clean version, redline and comparison overview). They can also be found on the wiki (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/2.+PDP-WT+Documents+%28Drafts+…) in addition to the public comment review tool and the attendance sheet. Also, please find below a proposed motion to approve the recommendations to the PDP-WT Updated Final Report. I am presenting to this motion to the Council now with the expectation that someone (which may be me on behalf of the registries) will ask that it be deferred until Dakar. That said, this process has gone on long enough that I believe we should finish everything up by no later than Dakar to move on to other projects. Thanks! Motion Motion to Adopt the Policy Development Process Work Team Updated 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 the GNSO Council referred those comments back to the PDP-WT for consideration (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) WHEREAS the PDP-WT has reviewed those comments and updated the report as deemed appropriate (see [include link to public comment review tool]; WHEREAS the PDP-WT submitted its Updated Final Report (see [include link] to the GNSO Council on 27 September 2011. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the revised GNSO Policy Development Process as reflected in the proposed Annex A and PDP Manual as outlined in the PDP Updated Final Report (see [include link]). RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the procedures of the new Annex A shall be applicable to all requests for Issue Reports and PDPs initiated following adoption by the ICANN Board. For all ongoing PDPs initiated prior to the adoption by the Board, the Council shall determine the feasibility of transitioning to the procedures set forth in this Annex A for all remaining steps within the PDP. If the Council determines that any ongoing PDP cannot be feasibly transitioned to these updated procedures, the PDP shall be concluded according to the procedures set forth in Annex A in force on before the adoption of the new Annex A by the Board. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

2 1

Re: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" fornon-binding best practices
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

As did I. Alan At 28/09/2011 08:35 PM, tim(a)godaddy.com wrote: >I received it from John via the list. > >Tim > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:23:01 >To: 'Adrian >Kinderis'<adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>; >'john(a)crediblecontext.com'<john(a)crediblecontext.com>; >'Marika Konings'<marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Cc: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org'<council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for > non-binding best practices > > >We will be sending out the proposed Dakar agenda >shortly for comment, but we were planning on including this topic. > >On a separate note, for some reason I did not >get john's e-mail until Adrian replied. Is this >just an issue with my e-mail or did others have the same problem? > >Thanks, > > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Vice President, Law and Policy >Neustar, Inc >Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.biz >P: 571-434-5772 >M: 202-549-5079 > > -----Original Message----- >From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] >Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:53 PM Eastern Standard Time >To: john(a)crediblecontext.com; Marika Konings >Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the >potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices > >Can we add this to the agenda in Dakar please? > > > >The Registrars will have lots to say here J > > > >I appreciate the perspective and applaud JB for his approach. > > > >Adrian Kinderis > > > > > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john(a)crediblecontext.com >Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011 1:18 AM >To: Marika Konings >Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [council] A thought on the potential of >a "seal program" for non-binding best practices > > > >Marika & fellow Coucillors: > > > >While I am totally supportive of working to >reach agreement on a shared definition of "best >practices" -- their identification, >implementation and measurement -- there is >something in the notion of a "seal of approval" that most piques my interest. > > > >As a founding member of the Board of TRUSTe >(www.truste.com) the online privacy rights >organization that manages a seal program for >data collection and use, I am familiar with the >consumer value of such industry self-regulatory programs can deliver. > > > >In the case of non-binding policies it may be >that such an approach -- a seal granted and >monitored by ICANN or a third-party -- can make >the implementation of these policies a matter of >competitive advantage for registrars and registries. > > > >As the non-binding best practices are >identified, they can be used as a way to review >business practices and earn (or not) a seal of >approval for the applying party. The seal can >them become a part of that company's competitive >marketing. Consumers can then choose to work >with a company based on their commitment to >those policies, knowing that a third-party is monitoring performance. > > > >This could be a way to supplement the consensus >policy process, using market forces help lead to consumer advantage. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Berard > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Discussion Paper on the Creation of Best Practices > to Address the Abusive Registrations of Domain Names > From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> > Date: Wed, September 28, 2011 3:20 am > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Dear All, > > > > As requested by the GNSO Council, > please find attached the discussion paper on > 'the creation of non-binding best practices to > help registrars andregistries address the > abusive registrations of domain names' prepared > by ICANN Staff. We would like to suggest that > the GNSO Council consider opening a public > comment forum on this document to allow for > community input on the issues outlined in the > paper as well as the proposed next steps. > Should the Council agree with this suggestion, > a time has been tentatively reserved at the > ICANN meeting in Senegal to organize a workshop > on the paper and solicit community input > (scheduled for Wednesday 26 October from 9.00 > 10.30 local time). We look forward to receiving your feedback. > > > With best regards, > > > > Marika

1 0

RE: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

We will be sending out the proposed Dakar agenda shortly for comment, but we were planning on including this topic. On a separate note, for some reason I did not get john's e-mail until Adrian replied. Is this just an issue with my e-mail or did others have the same problem? Thanks, Jeffrey J. Neuman Vice President, Law and Policy Neustar, Inc Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.biz P: 571-434-5772 M: 202-549-5079 -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:53 PM Eastern Standard Time To: john(a)crediblecontext.com; Marika Konings Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices Can we add this to the agenda in Dakar please? The Registrars will have lots to say here J I appreciate the perspective and applaud JB for his approach. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john(a)crediblecontext.com Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011 1:18 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices Marika & fellow Coucillors: While I am totally supportive of working to reach agreement on a shared definition of "best practices" -- their identification, implementation and measurement -- there is something in the notion of a "seal of approval" that most piques my interest. As a founding member of the Board of TRUSTe (www.truste.com) the online privacy rights organization that manages a seal program for data collection and use, I am familiar with the consumer value of such industry self-regulatory programs can deliver. In the case of non-binding policies it may be that such an approach -- a seal granted and monitored by ICANN or a third-party -- can make the implementation of these policies a matter of competitive advantage for registrars and registries. As the non-binding best practices are identified, they can be used as a way to review business practices and earn (or not) a seal of approval for the applying party. The seal can them become a part of that company's competitive marketing. Consumers can then choose to work with a company based on their commitment to those policies, knowing that a third-party is monitoring performance. This could be a way to supplement the consensus policy process, using market forces help lead to consumer advantage. Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Discussion Paper on the Creation of Best Practices to Address the Abusive Registrations of Domain Names From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, September 28, 2011 3:20 am To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear All, As requested by the GNSO Council, please find attached the discussion paper on 'the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars andregistries address the abusive registrations of domain names' prepared by ICANN Staff. We would like to suggest that the GNSO Council consider opening a public comment forum on this document to allow for community input on the issues outlined in the paper as well as the proposed next steps. Should the Council agree with this suggestion, a time has been tentatively reserved at the ICANN meeting in Senegal to organize a workshop on the paper and solicit community input (scheduled for Wednesday 26 October from 9.00 – 10.30 local time). We look forward to receiving your feedback. With best regards, Marika

2 1

A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices
by john＠crediblecontext.com Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

2 1

Motion to Approve Amended Version of Process B in Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to RAA with regard to High and Medium Priority Topics described in the Final Report
by Rosette, Kristina Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

All, I hereby submit for action at our October 6 meeting a motion to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement ("Final Report") to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. For convenience, I attach the motion in document form and provide a redline against a previous version of this motion that did not pass in our April 7 meeting. -*- Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; Whereas, a previous GNSO Council motion to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass at the GNSO Council's April 7, 2011 meeting; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve a further amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. The GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Office of the General Counsel review the prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report and identify any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. The GNSO Council requests that the Office of the General Counsel complete and publish on the ICANN website the outcome of such review and identification not later than seventy-five (75) days after the date of this resolution. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 3. Within sixty (60) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, bimonthly written reports on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. Each bimonthly report shall identify the status of (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee; and shall identify such topics, if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"). 5. The Negotiating Group shall review public comments received and continue negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than March 4, 2013. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. -*- Sincerely yours, Kristina Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com www.cov.com/krosette This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

4 6

Nomination acceptance/rejection
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

Dear Stéphane, You have been duly nominated by Jonathan Robinson, a Registries Stakeholder Group representative, from the contracted parties house to the position of GNSO council chair for the term beginning at the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12081.html Ching Chiao, from the Registries Stakeholder Group, has seconded your nomination. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12082.html Do you accept the nomination and if so, would you please be so kind as to submit a candidacy statement in writing to the gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org and the Council mailing list, not later than 22:00 UTC on 14 October 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Council meeting minutes 22 September 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 22 September 2011. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved on 7 October 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] GNSO Council Chair Nomination - Stéphane van Gelder
by Ching Chiao Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

I'd like to second the nomination of Stéphane van Gelder made by Jonathan. Thank you very much. Best regards, Ching Chiao On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Jonathan Robinson < jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> wrote: > Dear Glen,**** > > ** ** > > I would like to nominate Stéphane van Gelder from the contracted parties > house to the position of GNSO council chair for the term beginning at the > end of the 2011.**** > > ** ** > > I trust that this is sufficient and complete for you to accept the > nomination.**** > > ** ** > > Please let me know if you need any other procedural steps completed.**** > > ** ** > > Best wishes,**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Jonathan**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- Ching CHIAO Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG ===================================== Email: chiao(a)registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia www.facebook.com/ching.chiao

1 0

GNSO Council Chair Nomination - Stéphane van Gelder
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

Dear Glen, I would like to nominate Stéphane van Gelder from the contracted parties house to the position of GNSO council chair for the term beginning at the end of the 2011. I trust that this is sufficient and complete for you to accept the nomination. Please let me know if you need any other procedural steps completed. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0

Discussion Paper on the Creation of Best Practices to Address the Abusive Registrations of Domain Names
by Marika Konings Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

Dear All, As requested by the GNSO Council, please find attached the discussion paper on 'the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars andregistries address the abusive registrations of domain names' prepared by ICANN Staff. We would like to suggest that the GNSO Council consider opening a public comment forum on this document to allow for community input on the issues outlined in the paper as well as the proposed next steps. Should the Council agree with this suggestion, a time has been tentatively reserved at the ICANN meeting in Senegal to organize a workshop on the paper and solicit community input (scheduled for Wednesday 26 October from 9.00 – 10.30 local time). We look forward to receiving your feedback. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Chair Nomination Process
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

Chair Nomination Process Per the GNSO Operating Procedures referenced above (Section 2.2.b): “Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate.” To allow for the possibility of a timely Council election process in Dakar, each house is asked to submit its nominee for Council chair for the term beginning at the end of the 2011 ICANN annual meeting not later than 12 October 2011. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) as soon as possible after they have been selected by their house and not later than 22:00 UTC on 14 October 2011. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of the house selecting the candidate. Should the non voting NCA be elected as chair he/she would be a non-voting chair. The two houses may, separately, select the same candidate from the nominee pool if they so wish. House nominations for Council Chair should be sent to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>. The GNSO Secretariat will send each House’s nomination to the Council list as soon as it is received. Voting Procedure The candidates from each of the houses shall have the opportunity of meeting with Council Members during the GNSO working sessions on Sunday 23 October 2011. (remote participation possible) Voting will take place during the Council meeting in Dakar on Wednesday, 26 October 2011. In order for this to happen, the Council meeting will be split in two parts: • Full Open Council meeting with the current Council. • Seat the new Councillors. Start new meeting, with one agenda item: the Chair election. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#62]
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 25, 2011

Sept. 25, 2011

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: samedi 24 septembre 2011 16:12 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#62] Name of Officer: * William Drake Officer Email Address: * william.drake(a)uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch> Date Prepared: * Saturday, September 24, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Users Constituency Officer Position or Title: * GNSO Councillor Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Mr. William Drake, GNSO Councillor of the Non-Commercial Users constituency, is not able to attend the forthcoming meeting in Dakar. He was kindly requested that Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis is his Temporary Alternate. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis will be participating in the GNSO council meetings during the ICANN Dakar meeting only and he will have full voting rights in the various motions proposed. 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, October 28, 2011 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Konstantinos Komaitis Temporary Alternate Email Address: * k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk<mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>

1 0

GAC UDRP position
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 25, 2011

Sept. 25, 2011

Councillors, Please find below a message Heather sent me. I asked if I could share it with the Council and she responded that was fine. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > Objet : GNSO call/UDRP > Date : 22 septembre 2011 04:03:05 HAEC > À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > Dear Stephane > > One of my GAC members has alerted me to the blog post cited below, asserting that the GAC position on the UDRP review was somehow drafted by the law firm, Covington and Burling. In the event this issue might be raised during your Council call on September 22, I felt it important to assure you that the GAC position was in fact drafted by a small group of GAC members, circulated to the entire GAC list, and edited by a number of GAC members before being finalized. It is my understanding that one of the GAC members involved in the initial drafting exercise did consult with domestic stakeholders and accepted a proposed edit from a lawyer with Covington and Burling to insert a direct reference to the Board’s rationale for approving the new gTLD program, with a cite to that report. For reasons I do not understand, the tag to the firm remained in subsequent versions of the draft and now appears in the final version as well. That should not be understood by the GNSO Council to suggest that the firm drafted the GAC text. Thank you for your attention to this matter. > > Best regards, > Heather > > >

2 1

JAS Webinar - MP3 and presentations posted
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2011

Sept. 23, 2011

1 0