April 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Uniformity of Reporting - Final Issue Report
by Marika Konings 17 Apr '13

17 Apr '13

Dear All, Please find attached the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting for your consideration. With best regards, Marika

1 1

RE: [council] Public Forum Statement
by Jonathan Robinson 16 Apr '13

16 Apr '13

All, I am on holiday this week. Will pick up next week along with all other actions arising from Beijing. Thanks, Jonathan "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com> wrote: > > >Dear Jonathan: > > > >We suggest softening the public forum statement in the following manner, in advance of framing it in a letter to the Board of Directors. > > > >The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the > >only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to > >the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The > >GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to > >the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than > >implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not > >policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with > >implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is > >the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether > >or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN > >Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further. > > > >Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide > >policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event > >that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the > >Council's advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO > >Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a > >minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board's decision. > > > >Thank you, > > > >Brian > > > >Brian J. Winterfeldt > >Partner > >bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com > >Steptoe > > >------------------------------------------- >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Yoav Keren[SMTP:YOAV@DTNT.COM] >Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:34:46 PM >To: Jonathan Robinson >Cc: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH; GNSO Council List >Subject: Re: [council] Public Forum Statement >Auto forwarded by a Rule > > > >That is a good move forward Jonathan. > >Thank you for getting our message out there. > > > >Yoav > > > > > >Yoav Keren > >CEO > >Domain The Net Technologies Ltd. > > >ב-11 באפר 2013, בשעה 14:02, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> כתב/ה: > > >That was the plan. Statement plus letter. > >It's good that we are invited to send not simply sending in a vacuum. > >Jonathan > >Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: > >So we end up with a letter after all... > > > >Volker > > > >Sent from my iPad > > > >On 11.04.2013, at 18:27, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > > > > > >All, > > > >I made the statement and Chris Dispain, chair of the session asked for it to be sent to the board. > > > >Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > > >************************************************************************************ >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. >************************************************************************************ > > > > > >************************************************************************************ >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. >************************************************************************************ >

1 0

RE: [council] Public Forum Statement
by Winterfeldt, Brian 16 Apr '13

16 Apr '13

Dear Jonathan: We suggest softening the public forum statement in the following manner, in advance of framing it in a letter to the Board of Directors. The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further. Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the Council's advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board's decision. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Yoav Keren[SMTP:YOAV@DTNT.COM] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:34:46 PM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Public Forum Statement Auto forwarded by a Rule That is a good move forward Jonathan. Thank you for getting our message out there. Yoav Yoav Keren CEO Domain The Net Technologies Ltd. ב-11 באפר 2013, בשעה 14:02, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> כתב/ה: That was the plan. Statement plus letter. It's good that we are invited to send not simply sending in a vacuum. Jonathan Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: So we end up with a letter after all... Volker Sent from my iPad On 11.04.2013, at 18:27, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, I made the statement and Chris Dispain, chair of the session asked for it to be sent to the board. Jonathan ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************

1 0

Public Forum Statement
by Jonathan Robinson 14 Apr '13

14 Apr '13

All, I made the statement and Chris Dispain, chair of the session asked for it to be sent to the board. Jonathan

3 2

IAB Appoints Jonne Soininen as Liaison to the ICANN Board
by Bruce Tonkin 12 Apr '13

12 Apr '13

Hello All, The Internet Architecture Board (IAB), as a committee of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), has selected Jonne Soinnen to replace Thomas Narten as the IETF Liaison on the ICANN Board. See: http://www.iab.org/2013/04/11/iab-appoints-jonne-soininen-as-liaison-to-the… I believe the change over will happen at the Durban meeting. Note that Jonne Soinnen was previously on the Board from October 2009 to December 2010 as the TLG Liaison (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/soininen.htm ). Francisco da Silva is the current TLD Liaison (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/silva.htm ). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [council] Public Forum Statement
by Jonathan Robinson 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

That was the plan. Statement plus letter. It's good that we are invited to send not simply sending in a vacuum. Jonathan Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: >So we end up with a letter after all... > >Volker > >Sent from my iPad > >On 11.04.2013, at 18:27, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > >> >> All, >> >> I made the statement and Chris Dispain, chair of the session asked for it to be sent to the board. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >>

1 0

Beijing GAC Communique
by Bruce Tonkin 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

Hello All, Attached is the Beijing GAC communique. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

April 2013 NomCom Report Card
by Glen de Saint Géry 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

Please find attached the NomCom Report card for April for release to the liaison list. Thanks, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Draft text for IDN issues
by Ching Chiao [Registry.Asia] 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

Dear Jonathan, all, Here's the text below for the IDN issues for your consideration. Thanks! Ching ========= The GNSO Council discussed about the ongoing works and development in regards to IDN VIP program and IRD Recommendation 2 Final Report during our working session as well as the Council meeting in Beijing. The GNSO fully recognized the effort and progress by the staff and by the community contributors, as well as acknowledging the following concerns: 1. Operational transparency: besides ongoing policy work, for the benefit and the interest of the community, whether a "looking glass" can be made available for the Council and the GNSO community in general to understand the IDN gTLD delegation process, and allows the community provide timely feedback; 2. Registrant protection and security: GIven existing limitation of AGB and timeline of the IDN VIP works, IDN gTLD applicant will be forced to offer an incomplete product and it's different than what's being implemented by the IDN ccTLD operators. The Council therefore suggests that ICANN New gTLD team should immediately offer practical advisory to assist IDN gTLD applicant. 3. On-going experience learned and data collection in order to better prepare for the potential revision of the AGB. The Council continuously commits to promote the awareness and the participation of IDN gTLD there for wishes to collaborate with the Staff and to address the above issues immediately during the delegation of the IDN gTLD.

1 0

Potential Topics / Action Items for Wrap-up
by Jonathan Robinson 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

Wrap-up Session - Potential Topics to Cover * GNSO Council Board - Next steps? * GNSO GAC / BGRI WG - Next Steps? * ICANN Durban Meeting Organisation * Response to / letter on EWG? * Policy and Implementation - Outcomes and next steps - Letter from GNSO Council to other SO/ACs? * GNSO Review - Consider self-review - Look at previous GNSO self-review work - Understand link / overlap with ATRT2 - Seek update from Ray Plzak * Motions due 8 business days before meeting - Change operating procedures or fix existing ones * Information channels for review of RAA / new gTLD agreement * Privacy/proxy DT * CWG - Where to next? * Review of Motions for next session * Template to request Issue Report * Plural vs. Singular new gTLDs - Any GNSO Council Action / Steps to be taken? * Lack of interest on IDN issues - how to promote next steps / action (Could staff ensure Council is continually appraised of developements?) Action Items: * GNSO Council Chair comment to public forum * GNSO Council Chair to write to: - Board / CEO re Council Policy Advice - Other SO & AC leaders regarding Policy & Implementation - Bruce Tonkin re previous GNSO review - BGRI WG and/or GAC re tabulated summary of policy interaction points Refer timing of motions to SCI (business vs calendar days, as well as time) * GNSO Council Chair to contact Chairs of SO/ACs to ask for interest in policy vs. implementation WG

7 7