May 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Council meeting dates from July 2012 to January 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 May '12

15 May '12

Dear Councillors, We only have Council meetings scheduled up to the end of June 2012 and in order to organize your schedules ahead of time, would you please look through the suggested dates to see if there are any major clashes or whether you would like to propose alternate dates? Friday, 20 July at 11:00 UTC - Exceptionally we are proposing a change of day, from Thursday to Friday to accommodate the Chair's schedule. Thursday, 6 September at 15:00 UTC Thursday, 4 October at 20:00 UTC Wednesday, 24 October GNSO Public meeting in Toronto Thursday, 15 November at 11:00 UTC Thursday, 20 December at 15:00 UTC Because of the holidays at the end of the year, perhaps one should already fix the January meeting: Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 20:00 UTC Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 May '12

14 May '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11may12-en.htm WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report 11 May 2012 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 11 May 2012 Categories/Tags: Reviews/Improvements WHOIS Policy Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): The WHOIS Policy Review Team, constituted under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, submitted its Final Report and Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.44 MB] to the ICANN Board and this document has been posted for public comment. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-e… Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

New GNSO Web Site Announcement
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 May '12

12 May '12

[Transmitted on behalf of Rob Hoggarth and Berry Cobb] Re: Launching The New-Improved GNSO Web Site Dear GNSO Council Members, Stakeholder Group Leaders and Constituency Leaders, We are pleased to announce that the new-improved GNSO website is just about complete with a scheduled "go-live" date of 24 May 2012. Given the large quantity of new content and new design elements in the new site, we wanted to provide you with an opportunity to use, review and just generally experiment with the site prior to its public launch. We are hopeful you will find the new look, site architecture and content, to be a vast improvement from the current site, but this is just first phase. We are planning to add additional functionality, better graphics and further improvements over time - including now being able to move forward with efforts to provide web presence functionality for all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. As with any new tool, there may be some growing pains, so we are VERY interested in getting your early and initial feedback. In particular we are interested to hear what you like and what you don't like about the new design and navigation. We're also very concerned that the information provided in the site is accurate and complete. You'll note some new "About" sections that address the structure and operations of each of your respective organizations or communities. Please alert us if anything needs to be changed in those areas of the site - even if you just want to supply us with a new or updated photo. As an alternative to a lightly attended webinar, we've prepared a short set of slides (attached) with a quick overview of the new site. The presentation highlights some of the new features of the site and provides a quick explanation of the new structure and how content is organized. It also contains information about the form and timing of any potential feedback you might have for us. We are still open to holding a community webinar or individual community calls if you think that you or members of the community would benefit from such events. We'd appreciate that you share ANY feedback about the site with us at newgnsosite(a)icann.org<mailto:newgnsosite@icann.org> by May 20. That central email address will allow us to capture all your comments and the date will give us time to process any final fixes or modifications prior to the public launch on May 24. We are currently targeting the precise switch-over to take place late in the day of May 23 UTC time (23:59) - hence the "date" of 24 May. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth & Berry Cobb Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Fwd: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC Reconsideration Request
by Stéphane Van Gelder 12 May '12

12 May '12

Councillors, Please see the letter below sent by the IOC to ICANN. This is obviously a topic of great interest to the Council, so I felt you should be aware of it. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Objet : [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC Reconsideration Request > Date : 11 mai 2012 19:39:44 HAEC > À : "'gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org'" <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org> > > All, > > FYI, this was sent to me by Jim Bikoff who has given me permission to post to the Drafting Team. > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 > Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >

1 0

Period of 10-20 May 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date
by Glen de Saint Géry 11 May '12

11 May '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10may12-en.htm Period of 10-20 May 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date 10 May 2012 The Following Public Comment periods are approaching their Comment or Reply Period Close dates, May 10-20 2012. As a member of the ICANN community, your timely feedback is critical to our accountability and transparency efforts. For your convenience, we have included direct links below to comments that will soon close. During the Reply period for Public Comments, participants should only address previous comments submitted and new posts concerning the topic should not be introduced. When constructing Replies, contributors are asked to cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text that is pertinent. Please note that comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once that period ends. For more information please refer to the ICANN Public Comments page at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment Title Comment Period Close Date [UTC Time] Reply Period Close Date [UTC Time] Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) - Draft Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssrt-draft-report-15mar12-en.htm> Extended to 15 April 2012 [23:59] Extended to 14 May 2012 [23:59] Fake Renewal Notices Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21m…> 20 April 2012 [23:59] 11 May 2012 [23:59] .com Registry Agreement Renewal<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/com-renewal-27mar12-en.htm> 26 April 2012 [23:59] 17 May 2012 [23:59] .post Agreement Amendment<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.…> 9 May 2012 [23:59] 30 May 2012 [23:59] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Academy message
by Stéphane Van Gelder 11 May '12

11 May '12

All, As mentioned during our meeting today, I would like to write down a few baseline points to take to the Icann academy WG as being Council positions or items on which the Council is comfortable it wants answers for. To get this started, here are my suggestion. Please comment, add or edit as required. Message 1 to the WG: There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether the academy itself should be created. GNSO sub-message to message 1: The GNSO Council agrees the concept of an academy to help newcomers get to grips with the ICANN world is a good idea. But there needs to be clear guidelines on finance, budget and implementation. Message 2 to the WG: Once it has been determined that the concept of an academy is one that should be pushed forward, is willing to provide background material and support in helping academy attendees understand the intricacies of the GNSO and welcomes any suggestions from the WG on what type of material is needed. Please let me have other suggestions. Thanks. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

4 5

Re: [council] IOC/RC
by Stéphane Van Gelder 11 May '12

11 May '12

So the message would be this? The Drafting Team is continuing to work on the issue and will provide its recommendations back to the GNSO Council. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 11 mai 2012 à 02:09, Taylor, David a écrit : > > > The Drafting Team should keep working in order to provide its recommendations back to the GNSO Council. > > Willing and effective volunteers should be cherished. > > David > > > David Taylor > Partner > Hogan Lovells International LLP > 6 avenue Kléber > 75116 Paris > > Tel:+33 1 53 67 47 47 > Fax:+33 1 53 67 47 48 > Email:drd@hoganlovells.com > www.hoganlovells.com > > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:47 PM > To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: RE: [council] IOC/RC > > I disagreed with Mary’s suggestion on the chat and continue to for a number of reasons. First, implicit in Mary’s note is the notion that the Council has made the decision to abandon the Drafting Team approach, which is a notion I only advocated by the NCSG on the call. > > Second, it sends the wrong message to the current Drafting Team and will make it next to impossible for the Drafting Team to get any work done between now and Prague. They will not want to do any work on the second level issues as they will believe that doing such work would be a waste of their time (Since the GNSO as a whole is “continuing to work” on the issue). That feeling has already been expressed by several members of the DT (prior to the GNSO Council call). There is a strong belief that any future work will be a waste of their volunteer time. > > So, if we actually expect the DT to keep working on a response, which was what I clearly heard on the call, then let’s just state that the Drafting Team is continuing to work on the issue and will provide its recommendations back to the GNSO Council. If on the other hand the GNSO as a whole is willing to get on calls every two weeks and really work in earnest on the response, then I am fine with the message Mary suggests and I expect to see you all on the call next Wednesday as scheduled. I am fine with taking either approach…the Drafting Team works on it, or the GNSO as a whole works on its. But we can’t just state that the GNSO as a whole is working on it, and then it turns out no one actually does. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:50 PM > To: GNSO Council List > Subject: [council] IOC/RC > > Councillors, > > As discussed during today's call, I would like to ask the Council for clear direction on what next steps to take on the IOC/RC DT. > > You will recall that on the call I suggested that we instruct the DT to continue its work and that a short message be sent to the GAC. > > Mary had the following suggestion on the call: > > Mary Wong: @Stephane, in view of the apparent confusion over the DT issue, can you respond to the GAC simply stating what the DT has done to date and indicating that the GNSO as a whole is continuing to work on the second level issue without specifically mentioning that the DT will be the group doing the work? And then including that question on the agenda for our next mtg? > > Please add to this discussion so that we can determine what our next steps should be. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT > > > > Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC353350, and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales. Registered office: Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG. > Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP is an affiliated business of Hogan Lovells International LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales. "Hogan Lovells" is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses. The word "partner" is used to describe a partner or member of Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP or any of their affiliated entities or any employee or consultant with equivalent standing. Certain individuals, who are designated as partners, but who are not members of Hogan Lovells International LLP, do not hold qualifications equivalent to members. For more information about Hogan Lovells, the partners and their qualifications, see www.hoganlovells.com. > > CONFIDENTIALITY. > This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email is marked "officiel". It may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. >

3 4

WG: [Soac-infoalert] Draft blog post re Friday Board meetings, SO/AC reports, etc.
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 11 May '12

11 May '12

FYI. I'm in particular concerned with Steve's asking the Sos/ACs for "...major resolutions in the works that deserve to be dealt with in a public Board meeting" although I understand a positive intention to engage the community in the process of establishing the board agenda. However any criteria to evaluate what "indeed" may be of major interest are missing here (e.g. financial, organizational, policy related impact e.a.). Unsatisfying discussions about the rationale may follow. I don't like that the responsibility for the decision to hold a public board meeting is shifted to any SO/AC. To avoid unsatisfying discussions it may be acceptable if the board holds a public meeting in case of at least one (two, three...?) agenda items filed by any AC/SO regardless its assessment. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Steve Crocker Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Mai 2012 01:25 An: Barbara Ann Clay; Rod Beckstrom; Denise Michel; David Olive; Nick Tomasso; Diane Schroeder; Filiz Yilmaz; Christopher Mondini; soac-infoalert(a)icann.org; Icann-board ICANN Cc: Steve Crocker Betreff: [Soac-infoalert] Draft blog post re Friday Board meetings, SO/AC reports, etc. Folks (Staff, SO and AC chairs, and Board), I want to follow up on the announcement that we're wrapping up the ICANN meeting on Thursday evening. We got a lot of feedback expressing concern, some of which will be allayed with more information. Below is a draft of a blog entry I'd like to post as soon as it's been properly coordinated. Please take a look and let me know if there are flaws or missing pieces. (And if you know of someone I should have included in this coordination cycle, pass this on and also let me know.) If I can get the relevant information re the SO and AC reports, I'll add it in. Also, please let me know if there are indeed major resolutions in the works that deserve to be dealt with in a public Board meeting. If so, we will need to schedule a public Board meeting and I'll need to adjust the wording of this blog posting. Thanks, Steve ================================================================================================================================================== On April 30 I announced we will wrap up the ICANN meeting on Thursday evening and not use Friday. (Some groups may choose to use Friday for their own meetings; that's fine.) We have received multiple inputs asking for clarification or suggesting this change has some adverse consequences. The announcement was a bit light on details. I wanted to get the decision out so everyone could adjust their travel plans. Now I want to say a bit more about the changes. In the past, we had three parts to the program on Friday morning -- reports from the Board committees, reports from the chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and a formal Board meeting. Attendance during all parts of the morning have been very light. There really has not been much actual utility for the community. Also every day of meeting time is expensive, not just to ICANN but also to the community. Like many people, I had been noticing that Friday mornings were not well attended, and it was clear it was time to make a change. Let me now go into a few details, and I will close with a promise that if the changes we're making for Prague are not in the best interests of everyone, we will continue to evolve the schedule. With respect to our Board meetings, the large majority of the resolutions we approve are the regular pieces of business that are known well in advance. The Board approves these resolutions without fanfare. The substantive work is done via the Supporting Organizations or via staff work, and the work is posted. Once in while there are Board actions that have some controversy or drama. The XXX decision in San Francisco and the decision in Singapore to move forward with the gTLD program are the two recent examples that come to mind. For matters of this import, we will hold a public Board meeting. In Singapore, we did this at the beginning of the week. This was a big improvement and really helped set a positive tone for the entire week. I think this is a good pattern, and I'm inclined to follow this when it's needed. I don't know how often we'll have to do this; I suspect it will be less than half the time. A closely related aspect of this change is we will no longer be rushing through resolutions based on committee work or inputs during the week. We need to take some time to develop the proper documentation. So, instead of trying to cap the week off with resolutions passed on the basis of the week's work, we will report on what's come up during the week, what happened between the last ICANN meeting and this one, and what we plan to do following this ICANN meeting. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team, and is consistent with the changes we made some time ago to provide more thorough documentation in the form of a rationale for each resolution. These changes will have the benefit of providing time for careful and considered work on each resolution and better documentation for transparency and accountability. Our vice chair, Bruce Tonkin, observes: An example of this approach was on the topic of Conflicts of Interest in Dakar in October 2011. The Board listened to the community during the week, and then in the public session on conflicts Board members gave some feedback to the community on specific measures that would be taken with respect to new gTLDs. After careful review by the legal team and review by Board members, the Board held a meeting on 8 Dec 2011 and passed a resolution on management conflicts for new gTLDs. The Board also passed other resolutions that resulted from the discussion in Dakar. We have made some related changes in the coordination of Board resolutions and the scheduling of Board meetings. I will report on these changes in a separate posting. We recognize the community wants to see the Board in action and have the opportunity to interact with the Board. Toward this end, we are making two additional changes. In the opening session on Monday morning, I will include a summary of what has taken place since the last meeting, and on Thursday afternoon the Board will report on what it has heard during the week. The Board will continue to engage eagerly in the public sessions, listening closely to the comments from the community and responding to questions. At the beginning of this blog I mentioned the reports from the SO and AC chairs and the reports from the Board committees. We are still working out the arrangements for these and I will report separately on the details. The SOs and ACs are the lifeblood of ICANN, and we want to make sure they have greater, not lesser visibility. Finally, as I noted above, we are working hard to be both more effective and more efficient. If we need to continue to evolve this process, we will. Thank you. Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

2 1

Revised GNSO PDP Graphics
by Marika Konings 11 May '12

11 May '12

Dear All, Following yesterday's presentation on the revised GNSO Policy Development Process, please find attached the graphics that were used. For a better understanding, these graphics should be reviewed together with Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA) and the PDP Manual (http://newgnso.icann.org/basics/gnso-pdp-manual-annex-2-16dec11-en.pdf). If you have any further questions or difficulties in viewing the attached file, please let me know. With best regards, Marika

1 0

WG: ICANN 44 Public Forum agenda
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 11 May '12

11 May '12

All, I wonder whether the "Board public meeting format" could be a topic for the Public Forum agenda. I personally would support this and suggest that Stéphane - unless there is objection from councillors - indicates it to Filiz as a council proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Filiz Yilmaz Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Mai 2012 17:10 An: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Cc: steve.crocker(a)icann.org Betreff: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 44 Public Forum agenda [Sent on behalf of Steve Crocker] Dear ICANN Community Leaders, We are approaching ICANN 44 in Prague. As usual, we will have a Public Forum that will take place on Thursday, 28 June 2012, where Community members can make comments and ask questions to the Board and in front of the rest of the community. Following the practice we had in the recent meetings, we would like to build the agenda with your input again as this facilitates the forum process and results in a productive session with the subjects that the Community thinks are important to talk about. Publishing the agenda as early as possible also facilitates more informed discussions during the Public Forum as we have experienced in recent meetings, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics before the meeting actually starts. Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org) know of one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Prague, before the end of Monday, 4 June 2012. We will then review the suggestions, accommodate them as much as possible, combine common or related topics under one agenda topic and publish the agenda for the Public Forum after my approval. Thanks for your consideration and input. Kind regards, Steve Crocker

2 1