April 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Re: Invitation to ICANN Academy WG
by john＠crediblecontext.com April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012

2 1

Re: Invitation to ICANN Academy WG
by Stéphane Van Gelder April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012

Thanks Olivier, I am copying the GNSO Council on my response to you, so that they are informed and can in turn inform their respective groups and communities. I am also copying the other SO and AC Chairs as I believe the concept of an ICANN academy is relevant to all of them. As an initial comment, I want to thank ALAC for reaching out and for laying down the groundwork on this concept. Although I think the idea of a WG on the academy is great, I am surprised however that the mandate for this WG should be "to finalize a proposed curriculum" for the academy. It feels like we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves if that's the case and that the WG should start by looking to see if the academy should happen at all. I understand that ALAC thinks it should and has already worked hard on it, but surely the other communities should also be given a chance to either sign on or sign off before ICANN as a whole moves ahead on this. Thanks, Stéphane Le 21 avr. 2012 à 16:49, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > > During the ICANN meeting in San Jose, the ALAC presented the proposal > for an ICANN Academy, a program for people selected by the various ICANN > communities and the NomCom to be more effective when they take their > position and that would complement other ICANN capacity building > activities. As part of that presentation, I announced that we would be > inviting all ICANN communities to participate in the further development > of this proposal. > > The initiative for the ICANN Academy was initially conceived by At-Large > members as a comprehensive stand-alone project, which would include a > variety of educational offerings for all ICANN participants. On review > of various options and based on the existence of the current ongoing > other efforts such as Fellowship Program, Newcomers’ Tracks and Lounge, > ICANN staff expressed an immediate need to provide a capacity building > program for the future leaders of ICANN, those whose term starts at the > end of 2012 AGM in Toronto. The ALAC formed a Working Group to develop a > program to respond to this specific need and organized it as a pilot > operation. > > The first draft of this pilot program for new ICANN leaders was > presented recently at the ICANN meeting in San Jose. While the feedback > was favorable, it also supported that there was a growing need for > learning opportunities also among other constituencies > > The At-Large community views the ICANN Academy as an ICANN project > initiated by At-Large that needs further community support in order to > realize its full potential. As a result, we wish to invite members of > other advisory committees, the supporting organizations and the various > constituencies in the GNSO to join us in the Academy Working Group, to > contribute actively in furthering the concept and curriculum. > > Therefore, I kindly invite you to consider the inclusion of some > interested members of your community in the Academy Working Group to > finalize a proposed curriculum and the faculty for this pilot operation, > and to continue later on developing the aspects of the comprehensive > project together with ICANN Staff. > It is absolutely vital that at least one person from your constituency > takes part in the designing of the academic program. Just as the best > source of information about ALAC matters is an At-Large community > member, we believe that the best source of information for your > constituency's work is someone from your constituency. This will ensure > a *fair and balanced point of view* expressed to Academy participants - > a foundation feature of the ICANN Academy. > I look forward to hearing from you about a volunteer from your community > to take part in the working group as soon as possible, but certainly > before 30 April 2012. > > Warmest regards, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond, > ALAC Chair >

2 1

TAS Interruption - Update (22 April 2012) | ICANN
by Glen de Saint Géry April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr12-en.htm Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 22 April 2012 ICANN continues to work diligently to test the fix for the technical glitch that required the temporary suspension of the TLD application system, or TAS, and to identify affected applicants so that we can reopen the system as soon as possible. Yesterday we posted a series of FAQs to respond to questions we have received about the glitch that caused the system to be taken offline. Thank you for your patience as we work to reopen the application system. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN has posted a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document
by Glen de Saint Géry April 22, 2012

April 22, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21apr12-en.htm 21 April 2012 Today ICANN has posted a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/interruption-faqs> to respond to questions about the temporary suspension of the TLD application system. This supplements the video interview with Vice President and Chief Security Officer Jeff Moss<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/cso-tas-19apr12-…> that was posted on 19 April. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
by Neuman, Jeff April 21, 2012

April 21, 2012

Stephane, Consent agenda items are for items for which a motion is proposed and for items that do not require discussion and can be disposed of quickly. This is clearly an item that requires discussion even if a motion does get proposed, If we decide to abandon the group, which is an option, then we need to discuss what our response to the GAC will be. If we continue the group, then we will need to discuss the parameters of the group and the relationship to the pdp being commenced. Best regards, Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 07:37 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: '<mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu>'; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team That's exactly why we've introduced the consent agenda: for items that do not require resolutions, but that the Council wishes to mark its approval for. So this is clearly a consent agenda item. Stéphane Le 20 avr. 2012 à 13:12, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : > This is not a consent agenda item, but rather a discussion item. It didn't need a resolution to start this drafting team and if is the willow the council to either continue this group or even abandon the group, it would not need a resolution of the council to do so, > > Thanks. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 04:50 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Cc: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' > Subject: Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team > > I agree that the question of keeping the DT active should be addressed by the Council. > > I am happy to add that to our next meeting's agenda, as a consent agenda item, but it may be helpful if this discussion is started on the list before the meeting. > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT > > Le 19 avr. 2012 à 05:15, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> a écrit : > > > Thanks for adding the clarifications, Jeff - you're right that I'd assumed that some of the options would be obvious. > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > 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: > "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > > To: > "'mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu'" <mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu>, "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Date: > 4/18/2012 10:29 PM > > Subject: > RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team > > > Thanks to Mary for sending this note to the Council and I agree that clarification is needed. > > I do want to note a couple of points that were perhaps implicit in Mary's note, but not stated. Yes, a coup,e of people from the NCSG questioned whether this group should continue, others from other constituencies and SGs did believe that the DT could still continue. Even if ultimately a new group were formed in response to a PDP, the work of the DT could be used to inform the PDP process. So, one of the options included in Mary's e-mail is keeping the Drafting Team in place on the narrow issue of advising the GNSO on Its response to the GAC proposal dated September 14, 2011. Whether or not we keep the drafting team in place, we do owe the GAC a response to its proposal, which is now over 7 months old. > > The other thing to keep in mind is that a Preliminary Issue report will not be out until Prague and a final one by the Toronto meeting. This would be when the formal PDP would be launched and would also be over 12 months from when The GAC made its proposal to the GNSO regarding the IOC-RC names. > > > So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide direction. > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] > Sent:Wednesday, April 18, 2012 08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time > To:council@gnso.icann.org > Subject:[council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team > > Dear Councilors, > > A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll recall was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to formulate an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, regarding specific protections for the IOC and RCRC. > > In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent GNSO Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations. > > Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have a formal charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any event may in the view of some have been superseded by these recent events anyway. While some in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its deliberations for second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others prefer that the Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further direction. > > Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, forming a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the Board's rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the Issue Report process (or both). > > Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question? > > FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are: > > - The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report on whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should be given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204; > > - The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB at this time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12… (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203) and > > - The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on defensive registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to consider whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second level" should be undertaken: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > >

3 2

Draft Council minutes 12 April 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry April 20, 2012

April 20, 2012

Dear Councillors, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 12 April 2012. "If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting." on 30 April 2012. " Thank you. Kind regards, Glen

1 0

TAS Interruption - Update (19 April 2012)
by Glen de Saint Géry April 20, 2012

April 20, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-19apr12-en.htm TAS Interruption - Update (19 April 2012) Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 19 April 2012 ICANN continues to test the solution that we have developed for the glitch in the new gTLD application system, or TAS. We are also taking steps to improve system performance when the system reopens, and sifting through the data so that we can notify all applicants whether they have been affected. Yesterday we promised to provide more information, and today we have prepared a video interview with Jeff Moss, ICANN's Vice President and Chief Security Officer<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/cso-tas-19apr12-…>, answering questions about the glitch. Thank you for your patience as we work to reopen the application system. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
by Neuman, Jeff April 20, 2012

April 20, 2012

This is not a consent agenda item, but rather a discussion item. It didn't need a resolution to start this drafting team and if is the willow the council to either continue this group or even abandon the group, it would not need a resolution of the council to do so, Thanks. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 04:50 AM Eastern Standard Time To: <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> Cc: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team I agree that the question of keeping the DT active should be addressed by the Council. I am happy to add that to our next meeting's agenda, as a consent agenda item, but it may be helpful if this discussion is started on the list before the meeting. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 19 avr. 2012 à 05:15, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> a écrit : Thanks for adding the clarifications, Jeff - you're right that I'd assumed that some of the options would be obvious. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP 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: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> To: "'mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu'" <mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu>, "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: 4/18/2012 10:29 PM Subject: RE: [council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team Thanks to Mary for sending this note to the Council and I agree that clarification is needed. I do want to note a couple of points that were perhaps implicit in Mary's note, but not stated. Yes, a coup,e of people from the NCSG questioned whether this group should continue, others from other constituencies and SGs did believe that the DT could still continue. Even if ultimately a new group were formed in response to a PDP, the work of the DT could be used to inform the PDP process. So, one of the options included in Mary's e-mail is keeping the Drafting Team in place on the narrow issue of advising the GNSO on Its response to the GAC proposal dated September 14, 2011. Whether or not we keep the drafting team in place, we do owe the GAC a response to its proposal, which is now over 7 months old. The other thing to keep in mind is that a Preliminary Issue report will not be out until Prague and a final one by the Toronto meeting. This would be when the formal PDP would be launched and would also be over 12 months from when The GAC made its proposal to the GNSO regarding the IOC-RC names. So, let's get the discussion started at the Council to provide direction. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent:Wednesday, April 18, 2012 08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time To:council@gnso.icann.org Subject:[council] Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team Dear Councilors, A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll recall was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to formulate an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, regarding specific protections for the IOC and RCRC. In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent GNSO Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations. Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have a formal charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any event may in the view of some have been superseded by these recent events anyway. While some in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its deliberations for second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others prefer that the Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further direction. Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, forming a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the Board's rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the Issue Report process (or both). Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question? FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are: - The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report on whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should be given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204; - The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB at this time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12… (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203) and - The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on defensive registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to consider whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second level" should be undertaken: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

2 1

Statement by Akram Atallah, COO
by Glen de Saint Géry April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-18apr12-en.htm Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 18 April 2012 ICANN has been providing regular updates on the recent technical glitch that resulted in the TLD application system being taken offline. As reported earlier, we believe that we have fixed the glitch. We continue to test the solution and to conduct research to determine which file names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which applicants had the ability to see them. We will provide additional information tomorrow to address questions that we have received about the glitch. Please monitor the ICANN website at <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/interruption-updates> for further updates. Thank you for your patience while we work to resolve this issue and reopen the application system. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Request for clarification from IOC-RC Drafting Team
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

Dear Councilors, A question has arisen in the IOC-RC Drafting Team (DT), which as you'll recall was formed by the Council at the conclusion of the Dakar meeting to formulate an appropriate GNSO response to the GAC request of September 2011, regarding specific protections for the IOC and RCRC. In light of certain recent events, i.e. the April passage of a recent GNSO Council motion and two relevant Board resolutions, the DT requests clarification from the Council as to whether or not it is to continue with its discussions regarding second level protections for these two organizations. Since the DT is not a formal GNSO Working Group (WG), it does not have a formal charter that sets out clearly the scope of its work, which in any event may in the view of some have been superseded by these recent events anyway. While some in the DT believe there is no reason not to continue its deliberations for second level protections relating to the IOC and RCRC, others prefer that the Council (which was the body that formed it) provide further direction. Options include disbanding the DT in light of the pending Issue Report, forming a WG that would supersede it, or suspend the DT's work until either the Board's rationale for its resolutions is available or the conclusion of the Issue Report process (or both). Can the Council please provide some guidance on this question? FYI the language of our recent motion and the Board resolutions are: - The Council's recent passage of a motion to request an Issue Report on whether certain international organizations (to be defined/described) should be given additional protections at the top and second levels in the new gTLD program: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204; - The Board's recent resolution not to make further changes to the AGB at this time despite the Council's earlier passage of a motion recommending the adoption of the DT's proposals for additional protections for the IOC and RCRC: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12… (GNSO Council motion: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201203) and - The Board's recent resolution to request a staff briefing paper on defensive registrations and second level protections as well as for the GNSO to consider whether "additional work on defensive registrations at the second level" should be undertaken: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0