May 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

SSR Review Team Webinar 11 May 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

Dear ICANN Community Members: I would like to bring a recent webinar announcement to your attention. You are invited to participate in the Security, Stability, Resiliency of the DNS (SSR) Review Team's webinar to discuss their assessment of ICANN's SSR activities. Two webinars are scheduled to accommodate global timezones -- Friday, 11 May 2012 at 11:00 UTC and again at 19:00 UTC. Participants will receive an overview of the Review Team's recommendations on ICANN's fulfillment of its commitment to "enhance the operational stability, reliability, resiliency, security and global interoperability of the DNS," and will have an opportunity to provide comments and ask questions about the Team's draft report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssrt-draft-report-15mar12-en.htm>. More details are included in the Team's webinar announcement (below), including RSVP instructions. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Public Webinars on Draft Report Friday, 11 May 2012 at 11:00 UTC and again at 19:00 UTC 2 May 2012 On 15 March 2012, the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT), constituted under the Affirmation of Commitments<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30s…> (AoC), published its Draft Report and Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-en.pdf> [PDF, 2 MB] for public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssrt-draft-report-15mar12-en.htm> to inform their work in producing a Final Report. Translations of the report are available: · العربية<http://www.icann.org/ar/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-ar.pdf> [PDF، 721 كيلو بايت] · 简体中文<http://www.icann.org/zh/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-zh.pdf> [PDF, 751 KB] · English<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-en.pdf> [PDF, 2 MB] · Español<http://www.icann.org/es/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-es.pdf> [PDF, 683 KB] · Français<http://www.icann.org/fr/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-fr.pdf> [PDF, 821 KB] · Русский<http://www.icann.org/ru/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-ru.pdf> [PDF, 926 KB] Consistent with its initial announcement, the SSR Review Team now invites the Community to participate in a public webinar with a view to presenting its draft report and recommendations and soliciting the Community's feedback on its findings and conclusions. The public webinar will take place on Friday, 11 May 2012. Two sessions will be scheduled to accommodate different timezones i.e. at 11:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The sessions are expected to last 60 minutes. They are duplicates and will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. Staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org> by Thursday, 10 May – 23:59 UTC to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Friday at 11.00 UTC or Friday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see:http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. For more information on the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT), please refer to:http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr

1 0

GNSO COuncil agenda 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

Dear All, Please find the Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-10may12-en.htm Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Please consult the Wiki agenda for the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+May+2012 The motions before Council are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012 Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 10 May 2012 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-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 Times 15:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Council+meting+&is…> Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo 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: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 12 April 2012 To be approved on 30 April 2012.http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12945.html 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (10 minutes) Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names. The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names. The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to create the charter for these groups. Refer to motion 1[https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+20… ] 3.2 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: Update on the new PDP (10 minutes) In December 2011, the ICANN Board adopted, on the recommendation of the GNSO Council, the revised GNSO Policy Development Process. This session is to introduce the revised GNSO PDP and explain its new features in detail. Introduction to Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/intro-revised-gnso-pdp-14mar12-en.pdf 4.1 Update (Marika Konings) 4.2 Discussion Item 5: International Olympics Committee /Red Cross Names Drafting Team (IOC/RC DT) (10 minutes) At its March 26 meeting, the GNSO Council approved the IOC/RC DT's recommendations (see resolution passed by the Council here http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#20120326-1) On April 10, 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program Committee and granted it all of the powers of the Board to exercise Board-level authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. The Committee met on 10 April 2012 and resolved not to update the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook at this time (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr…) In the light of this Board decision, this discussion item aims to determine whether the Council should disband the IOC/RC DT or whether fresh instructions should be given to the DT. 5.1 DT Update from Staff (X Y). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next Steps Item 6: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group( JAS WG) (10 minutes) This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG so that next steps for the group can be determined. 6.1 WG update from Staff (Kurt Pritz) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: Synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements - The WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes) The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings. This agenda item is to determine what next steps, if any, should be planned for this project item. 7.1 Update from Staff (X Y) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data WG (10 minutes) The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March 3, 2012 for review and approval. However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered. This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in the IRD WG's work to the Council. 8.1 WG update from Staff (Steve Cheng) 8.2 Discussion Item 9: 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: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. 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. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. 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. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." 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 and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 03:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

5 6

RE: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings
by Alan Greenberg May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

I recall a conversation at the end of the Costa Rica meeting which implied that the Board's ability to move all decisions onto the consent agenda meant that there had been no need for that public meeting, and by using induction, there would be no need for any further meeting either. My recollection of the concept of induction is that you need more than one sample and that there needs to be a relationship linking the samples. I somehow doubt that the lack of controversial subjects on that agenda means that there wwill never be another controversial subject up for a Board decision. If you go back to recent meetings where there HAVE been issues of contention, how the meetings played out told us a fair amount about the thought processes of various Board members and what things they valued. Some the VERY few data points that we have to allow us to judge Board member performance. Alan At 03/05/2012 07:02 PM, Mason Cole wrote: >I agree with Stephane's comment regarding time >and efficiency, but also with Thomas' comment >regarding transparency. I'm all for doing >what's reasonable to keep meetings >manageable. However, the board selectively >discloses information about its decisions as it >is. I'd like to hear about why this improves >transparency. If there's a credible reason, I'm likely to be okay with it. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Thomas Rickert >Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:27 AM >To: Stéphane Van Gelder >Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - >Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings > >Stéphane, all, >holding meetings for the sake of having them and >wasting everyone's valuable time should by all >means avoided (I am sure most of you have seen >the educational videos "Meetings, Bloody >Meetings" with John Cleese, which I highly recommend :-)). > >I also understand that it is a challenge to >travel to three meetings per year that last for a week. > >Thus, I fully support the idea of making meetings more effective. > >Therefore, >- publishing the committee reports sounds reasonable. >- adding two sessions with community interaction sounds reasonable, too. > >However, I am not convinced that the public >Board meeting should be sacrificed to shorten the meeting by one day. >Looking at the number of attendees, only those >interested in the Board meetings participate on >Friday. Participation is voluntary and those who >want to spend less time at the meetings have the choice to leave. > >Eliminating the public Board meeting to save >time sounds patronizing to me. I do agree that >it is at times a theatre and that the format >could be improved. Nonetheless, even if it is a >theatre, participants get the chance to learn >how the group works and what the views of the >board members are. I also think it makes a >difference for board members to express their >views publicly, so they might even be more >diligent (I am not indicating board members are >not diligent, but chaining the format may have that effect). > >While I do believe that the Board made this >change with the best intentions, I think it was >wrong (at least for the Prague meeting to start) and inadequately implemented. > >- There was no consultation (at least I have not >seen any) on this subject matter to get >community feedback whether or not the community >wishes the board to save its time. > >- In its announcement, ICANN does not offer any >alternatives to keep transparency at the same >level. This gives raise to the suspicion that >there will be less transparency in the future. > >- Timing for this change is unfortunate given >the TAS interruption, the upcoming controversial >batching process and the IANA bid. Taking the >meetings out of the public arena may be >perceived as not wishing to publicly discuss >these (and certainly other) important matters. > >Maybe meetings can actually be streamlined and >end earlier, but in my view, this should not be >done in a phase where ICANN is exposed to criticism as much as now. > >Thomas > > >___________________________________________________________ >Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law > >Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH >www.anwaelte.de > >Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry >www.eco.de > > >Am 03.05.2012 um 15:16 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder: > > > Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for your comments. > > If there is more decision on this, > could I urge others to chime in so that we can > ascertain whether a full agenda item is needed > on this, or whether the discussion can be had on the list. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT > > Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38, > <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> a écrit : > > > My personal view on this is mixed. > > Saving of time and money is > always preferable - but not at the expense of > transparency when the board is taking decisions > at public meetings. SO/AC/BC reporting could be > removed by providing them in written form only. > But it makes a difference > - to hold "a one-hour session > following the Public Forum on Thursday > afternoon..... and outline what they have heard > during the week from their meetings with AC/SOs > and their constituent parts and identify those > matters they expect to be dealing with...", to > decide upon during non-public board sessions > and at the following ICANN Public Meeting to > "report to the community on what they have dealt with since Prague" > or > - to discuss and take decisions publicly > > I'm curious to know whether this > board decision was based on the survey > ("Improving Global Engagement") ICANN started > in March where they solicited community input > on improving e.g. effectiveness. For me the > Public Meetings - with all their facets - are > per se the highlights of global engagement. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > >________________________________ > > Von: > owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012 22:52 > An: Margie Milam > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Council > Betreff: Re: [council] > Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings > > > Thanks Margie, much appreciated. > > In the meantime, let me > add some more context for the benefit of the Council. > > In CR, Steve asked me > what I would think of the idea of shortening > the ICANN meeting week by doing away with the > Friday. This was floated to me as just an idea. > I was given no indication that it would be > implemented one day, let alone in Prague. And I > was given no details on its possible implementation. > > When Steve discussed > this with me, I did not get the sense that he > meant to do a public consultation on this > decision. This was a private conversation and > not one where it was at any time made clear to > me that I should break Steve's confidence and > discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this here. > > This week's > announcement has, as Jeff says, generated some > negative comments. Those that I have seen are > that this decision was taken without any > consultation and that doing away with the > Friday Board meeting is detrimental to transparency. > > My own personal view is > otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday > out of the ICANN week is a step in the right > direction towards reducing costs and time > challenges for meeting participants, including > the Board. Over the past year, I have seen the > Board work hard to improve its transparency. We > now have detailed rationale on votes at every > meeting and explanations of the issues being > considered. So I am comfortable with giving the > Board a little of the benefit of the doubt in > trying out new ideas such as this one. > > Stéphane > > > > > Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit : > > > Hi Stéphane, > I'll follow up > internally to provide the requested information. > Best regards, > Margie > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Council > Subject: Re: > [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings > Is someone from > Staff able to provide the requested > information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting? > Stéphane > >Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : > > > All, > >Given the announcement yesterday of the >elimination of the public Board meetings at >ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council >agenda as a discussion item. I would like it if >someone from ICANN that is familiar with the >rationale behind this decision could give us an >explanation of how and why that decision was made. > >Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally >declare that all of its meetings will be >private, does this set a precedent for its >Supporting Organizations to do the same >thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with >respect to the Council in a little bit, but does >the Council have the discretion to declare that >it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN? > > I think there > has been enough disapproval expressed within > the community in the last day or so that at > least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / > Vice President, Business Affairs > 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>mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> > / www.neustar.biz <<http://www.neustar.biz/>http://www.neustar.biz/> > > > > >___________________________________________________________ >Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt >Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) >Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert >HRB 9262, AG Bonn > >Büro / Office Bonn: >Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany >Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 > >Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: >Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany >Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 > >Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 > >mailto: rickert(a)anwaelte.de >skype-id: trickert >web: www.anwaelte.de >

1 0

Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings
by Neuman, Jeff May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

All, Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item. I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was made. Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN? I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 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/>

12 14

Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
by Alan Greenberg May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

The current URS was developed by a GNSO STI "Review Team" at the explicit request of the Board (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17dec09-en.htm) has a quick summary of the process). It was tweaked in a number of ways by Staff during implementation, and once unilaterally by the Board (presumably in response to pressure from one group). It does not sound as if the current planned revision would be considered a "tweak". As such, I don't see how the GNSO could be excluded from the process (and being lumped into "and community members". The satisfactory outcome of the STI group was not pre-destined. Given the strongly differing views of those going into the process, the outcome was remarkable and at least partially attributable to the good will of those involved and their willingness to take a fresh look at the issues. Given the nature of the problem, the history, and the tight timing there is a great potential to come out of the described consultative process with a plan that meets the desired price point but not the needs of the various groups. I appreciate that the timing might not allow for a traditional GNSO policy development process (just as the STI effort didn't), but the GNSO should ne be placed on the periphery of the discussions. If special "summits" are deemed necessary due to timing constraints, the GNSO must be a prominent player (probably through a balanced group of participants as with the STI). As such, the GNSO team should be funded for this participation at the summits. Alan At 03/05/2012 02:09 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >All, > >Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but >buried in the new budget document >(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) >just put out for comment is a note on >reconfiguring the URS. Excerpt provided >below. I guess they could not find any URS >providers that could do it for the costs that >they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 >summits to work on a new model. My question for >the Council, is whether this is really a policy >issue that should be referred back to the GNSO >Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own >resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the >controversy around this over the past few years, >any tweaks to the URS should probably go back to the community in my opinion. > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) $175K >At present there is a significant gap between >the features specified for the URS procedure and >the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we >will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure >the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one >session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 >plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize >URS Model in consultation with current UDRP >providers and community members; and conduct RFP >based on URS Model and select URS providers. The >goal is have a URS program in place and >providers contracted and onboard by June 2013.

1 0

Fwd: Canceled: Webinar: Overview of the FY13 draft Ops Plan and Budget Framework
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

Councillors, FYI, the webinars below have been cancelled. Please take note if you were intending to participate. I understand that new dates will be suggested shortly. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Objet : Canceled: Webinar: Overview of the FY13 draft Ops Plan and Budget Framework > Date : 2 mai 2012 02:38:13 HAEC > À : Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "Metalitz, Steven (met(a)msk.com)" <met(a)msk.com>, "lesley(a)nominet.org.uk" <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se>, "Heather (Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca)" <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, "jcurran(a)arin.net" <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "'Louie Lee (louie(a)louie.net)'" <louie(a)louie.net>, "ocl(a)gih.com" <ocl(a)gih.com>, "Jun Murai (junsec(a)wide.ad.jp)" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, "Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, 'Robin Gross' <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk>, "'gchynoweth(a)dyn.com'" <gchynoweth(a)dyn.com>, 'David Maher ' <dmaher(a)pir.org>, "'stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com'" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "'asterling(a)aamc.org'" <asterling(a)aamc.org>, Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange(a)icann.org>, Aba Diakite <aba.diakite(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> > > Date: Monday, May 8 at 7am (PDT) > Location: Adigo Conference Call and Adobe Connect Presentation (see the instruction below) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear All, > > A webinar with Xavier Calvez, ICANN CFO and finance team to discuss the Overview of the FY13 draft Ops Plan and Budget Framework > is scheduled on: > > 1. Monday, May 7 at 7:00am (PDT), 10:00am (EDT), 3:00pm (UTC/CEST), 6:00pm (MSD), 10:00pm (SGT), 1:00am (AEST on May 8) > 2. Monday, May 7 at 4:00pm (PDT), 7:00pm (EDT), 12:00am (UTC/CEST on May 8), 3:00am (MSD on May 8), 7:00am (SGT on May 8), 10:00am (AEST on May 8) > 3. Tuesday, May 8 at 7:00am (PDT), 10:00am (EDT), 3:00pm (UTC/CEST), 6:00pm (MSD), 10:00pm (SGT), 1:00am (AEST on May 8) > Please choose your date/time from the above. The Webinar will the same on those 3 sessions. > *This webinar will be held in English only. > > > <Agenda> > 1. Key Drivers to building the FY13 draft Operating Plan and Budget – Xavier > 2. Review of revised structure for FY13 Budget Process - Xavier > 3. Overview of contents - Xavier > 4. Questions from community > > > > Conference Call Participant Instructions: > 1. Dial the Toll-free access number or the Access number: global access numbers are here: http://adigo.com/icann/ US +1 (800) 550-6865 > 2. Enter the Conference ID (3939502345) and the # sign > > **If you require a dial-out please contact Maya Reynolds for assistance: > maya.reynolds(a)icann.org > > > Adobe Connect Instruction: > Please log in to > https://icann.adobeconnect.com/aba/ > > > Best regards, > > Maya Reynolds > Executive assistant to Xavier Calvez, CFO ICANN > >

1 0

WHOIS Access Report (Port 43)
by Marika Konings May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

Dear All, In keeping with the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department to publish "more data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis", please find their latest report, which has been just published, at http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/audits. If you have any questions, please let us know. With best regards, Marika Sr. Policy Director ICANN

1 0

ICANN Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget - Public Comment Period Opens
by Glen de Saint Géry May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-01may12-en.htm ICANN Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget 1 May 2012 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 1 May 2012 Categories/Tags: * Operations-Finances * ICANN Board/Bylaws Purpose (Brief): ICANN's annual operating plan and budget describes the planned activities and required resources for the fiscal year. These activities are based on ICANN's strategic objectives, fiscal year priorities and community input. The Bylaws require that the draft Operating Plan be posted by the 17th of May; it was determined to post earlier this year to ensure adequate opportunity for feedback on the various aspects of the proposed budget and implementation of ICANN resources for the coming fiscal year. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Update now on new gTLD Program statistics page
by Bruce Tonkin May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics The Latest Number of TLD Application System Registrants As of the time TAS was taken offline on 12 April 2012, the number of registrants in the system was 1,268. This number could change for applicants that might withdraw or were in the process of submitting their $5000 deposit when the system was taken offline. A final number (which we don't expect to be materially different) will be posted after the application window closes.

1 0