November 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday 02 December 2013 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 12 December 2013 at 15:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 2, 2013

Dec. 2, 2013

Dear Councilors, Please note that reports, motions and documents for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 12 December 2013 at 15:00 UTC. are due no later than Monday, 02 December 2013 at 23:59 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+December… 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 1

Council as process manager
by Avri Doria Dec. 1, 2013

Dec. 1, 2013

Hi, During the one day session we had in BA, I spoke of the managerial role of the council as its primary, though not only, role. Several people seemed to equate that, with me advocating a rubber stamp process. I do not see it that way at all. I see the managerial role as difficult and challenging. But perhaps I should explain what I mean by a council doing the management of process role. I believe that the well accepted adage, a meme if you like, is that with the last reorganization we moved away from a legislative council to a management council. Management of a policy process is a difficult and involved task. For example when i think of a managerial process i think: it involves careful observation of the process by the liaison looking for issues that need to be remedied before they become significant. Whether it is an issue of insufficient diversity or the inability of a chair to understand the points made by a member or faction in the WG. And it involves work to ameliorate the situation. Perhaps by the liaison alone and perhaps with the help of others in council. I can also imagine many times when a WG wastes weeks trying to understand what the council meant by "it may recommend x" in is charter, the liaison could bring the question to the council for discussion and elucidation - they don't need to wait for the WG to surrender to confusion and ask; liaisons can work pro-actively to help (to be clear, help in a neutral supportive manner, not direct). It involves reading a lot of issues reports, draft reports etc... .With sufficient understanding to ask the critical questions and to make sure the implications are understood as well as they can be. We need to understand the issues, of our SG/C a well as of the community in general, well enough to ask the questions others may ask and make sure those answers are contained in the reports. It involves the vision and cottage of sending issues back to WGs, when something needs further work or when the ICANN consensus seems weak or ambiguous. It involves doing the WG post analysis to understand what might need to happen to make future working groups better/easier, less of a forced march. It may also include understanding the processes we need to follow when the Board sends back one of our recommendations for further consideration, something we hope they will do rather than deciding issues at their own pleasure. This is the sort of stuff I thought the council would be doing in its new role, and to me it looks like a significant , not rubber stamp, type of role. I thought we were responsible for making sure our process works and it's defended (another one of our roles) Though perhaps I am wrong and this is not what we needed to learn from our last review/reorg, in which case than it might be a topic for our review ToR. Avri Doria

3 4

Final GAC communique
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 29, 2013

Nov. 29, 2013

FYI Attached please find the finalised GAC communique from Buenos Aires. The communique will be posted on the GAC Website later today. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

12 28

Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
by avri Nov. 28, 2013

Nov. 28, 2013

Hi I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it. In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling. Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech. I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate. Thanks, avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson(a)afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>,"<council(a)gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Jonathan and John, The NCSG/ALAC meeting where this idea was proposed started immediately following the Council wrap-up session. It was not, to my knowledge, an initiative born from any invitation of any kind nor imposed by anyone from the “top” or elsewhere. It was more of a discussion amongst civil society actors within the ICANN community to coordinate efforts to ensure NCSG/ALAC representation in whatever process leads up to the Brazil summit (or whatever they’ve decided to call it) in April 2014. In fact, one of the outputs of the meeting was a suggestion to draft a joint NCSG/ALAC letter addressed to Fadi expressing a desire to engage in the process. During the meeting, it was also decided that inviting the broader ICANN community to the discussion using a Wiki as a platform for cross community input on the topic was a good idea. The term “Cross-Community Working Group” was used in an email message on an NCSG list, but I am not aware of any actual WG or drafting team in the pipeline. Just a Wiki-based cross community discussion platform. If this changes, if I learn something I do not know now, or when the Wiki goes online, I’ll be sure to send a note to all of you on the Council list to make sure you’re all informed. Sound good? Thanks. Amr On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:22 PM, John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com> wrote: Jonathan, The work of the drafting team is aimed at creating an aligned PDP and reflects a bottom-up sensibility This CWG on Internet Governance is more politics than policy and has been imposed from the top, What I would like to know is who issued the invitation to the ALAC and NCSG, what was the rationale and why the NCSG accepted without consultation with the broader GNSO of which they are a part? Were other ACs and SOs invited? Did they decline? I am aware that I am veering toward paranoia, but it's not inappropriate if they are really out to get you. Cheers, Berard Sent from my iPhone On Nov 27, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: All, At the Council meeting wrap-up in Buenos Aires, we talked about GNSO participation in the CWG on internet governance and the Council and/or GNSO Council chair’s otential role. At the time, I don’t believe we were aware of the proposed role of ALAC / NCSG as co-ordinators. I think (from a Council perspective) we should probably now await the call for further participation and respond to that, but I am open to any other suggestions. We could offer the CWG principles as they currently stand? Jonathan

6 10

UPDATED: REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday 02 December 2013 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 12 December 2013 at 15:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 28, 2013

Nov. 28, 2013

With correct Council meeting date, apologies. Nathalie From: Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:35 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday 02 December 2013 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 12 December 2013 at 15:00 UTC Dear Councilors, Please note that reports, motions and documents for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 12 December 2013 at 15:00 UTC. are due no later than Monday, 02 December 2013 at 23:59 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+December… 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

REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday 02 December 2013 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 12 December 2013 at 15:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 28, 2013

Nov. 28, 2013

Dear Councilors, Please note that reports, motions and documents for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC. are due no later than Monday, 02 December 2013 at 23:59 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+December… 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

RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
by john＠crediblecontext.com Nov. 28, 2013

Nov. 28, 2013

1 0

FW: Welcome to the "I-coordination" mailing list
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 28, 2013

Nov. 28, 2013

Mikey, I finally received the following message on Monday regarding the i-coordination email list. I had been waiting for a couple weeks. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: i-coordination-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:i-coordination-bounces@nro.net] On Behalf Of i-coordination-request(a)nro.net Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 8:49 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Subject: Welcome to the "I-coordination" mailing list Welcome to the I-coordination(a)nro.net mailing list! To post to this list, send your email to: i-coordination(a)nro.net General information about the mailing list is at: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at: https://nro.net/mailman/options/i-coordination/cgomes%40verisign.com You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to: I-coordination-request(a)nro.net with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. You must know your password to change your options (including changing the password, itself) or to unsubscribe. It is: ocpufoec Normally, Mailman will remind you of your nro.net mailing list passwords once every month, although you can disable this if you prefer. This reminder will also include instructions on how to unsubscribe or change your account options. There is also a button on your options page that will email your current password to you.

1 0

the i-coordination mailing list
by Mike O'Connor Nov. 28, 2013

Nov. 28, 2013

hi all, one of the threads that ran through the "prepare for Brazil" conversation in BA was reference to a mailing list -- not the dead one on the 1net.org site, but an actual live one that was being run by the NRO. here's a link to the subscription page for that list. https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 28, 2013

Nov. 28, 2013

All, At the Council meeting wrap-up in Buenos Aires, we talked about GNSO participation in the CWG on internet governance and the Council and/or GNSO Council chair's otential role. At the time, I don't believe we were aware of the proposed role of ALAC / NCSG as co-ordinators. I think (from a Council perspective) we should probably now await the call for further participation and respond to that, but I am open to any other suggestions. We could offer the CWG principles as they currently stand? Jonathan

4 4