September 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Staff paper on RAA Remaining Issues PDP
by Mary Wong Sept. 16, 2013

Sept. 16, 2013

Dear all, Please find attached the ICANN staff paper summarizing the remaining issues from the completed RAA negotiations to be considered and recommendations developed by the GNSO, following the Board's initial request in October 2011, the Final RAA Issue Report in March 2012 and, most recently, the approval by the Board of the new 2013 RAA in June 2013, signifying the conclusion of negotiations on the RAA. The paper includes a procedural summary of each of these various stages, an annex of relevant excerpts from a number of prior community efforts and reports, and (in Section VIII) an Issues Chart detailing specific issues and questions pertaining to the "remaining issues" to be considered by the GNSO in this PDP. We hope you'll find the paper a useful summary and follow-up from the initial briefing that Margie and I conducted at the Council meeting earlier this month. As discussed separately at that meeting, one of the options for improving or moving a PDP along was the possibility of having a draft Working Group Charter first developed by ICANN staff. Given the Council's hesitation at that meeting to move forward with such a proposal, however, we have not included a draft charter in this paper. Should this paper, especially the Issues Chart, find approval with you and your constituencies and stakeholder groups, we would be happy to include at your direction a draft charter for this particular PDP as a means of "testing" one of the suggested PDP improvements. We look forward to further discussions on the RAA Remaining Issues PDP at the next Council meeting. I should note, in addition, that we are hopeful that the GNSO-commissioned WHOIS study on Privacy/Proxy Abuse, which as you know is being conducted by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom, will be published before the end of the month – which would allow for its findings to be considered by the Council and the GNSO community during the establishment of the WG for this PDP. Thanks very much, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. *

1 0

GNSO Councillors - RrSG Election Results
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 16, 2013

Sept. 16, 2013

All, I have been informed by Michele Neylon, chair of the Registrars SG, that the two RrSG Councillors (with effect from Buenos Aires) will be: Yoav Keren James Bladel Thanks and congratulations to both for re-election / election respectively. Jonathan -- Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

2 1

NGPC Takes Action on GAC Durban Advice on New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 13, 2013

Sept. 13, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12sep13-en.htm NGPC Takes Action on GAC Durban Advice on New gTLDs 12 September 2013 The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 10 September 2013 and, among other things, reached a decision regarding the GAC's further advice<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-01aug13-en> on new gTLDs. The GAC conveyed its advice to the NGPC in its Durban Communiqué<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Final_GAC_Communique…> [PDF, 103 KB], issued on 18 July 2013. Applicants submitted responses to the advice on 23 August 2013. At its most recent meeting, the NGPC adopted the Durban Scorecard, available at Annex 1<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1…> [PDF, 119 KB], disposing of all of the GAC's further advice with one exception - the NGPC indicated it would take action on the advice concerning the .amazon string at a future meeting. The NGPC also discussed the remaining open items from the Beijing Communiqué. These include the advice pertaining to protections for IGO names and acronyms; Category 1 Safeguard advice; and Category 2 advice with respect to exclusive access registries. The NGPC and staff are working with the GAC to identify a time and place for further dialogue on these items. The NGPC will next meet on 28.09.2013 and will provide a further update following that meeting. The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remains on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. The NGPC is prioritizing its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. We will continue to provide updates on the NGPC's progress in responding to the GAC Beijing and Durban Advice. 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

Resolutions from the new gTLD Program Committee held on 10 Sept 2013
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 13, 2013

Sept. 13, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10sep13… Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 10 September 2013 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of NGPC Meeting Minutes Resolved (2013.09.10.NG01), the Board approves the minutes of the 13 July 2013 and 17 July 2013 New gTLD Program Committee Meetings. 2. Main Agenda: a. Update on String Similarity No resolution taken. b. BGC recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-5 Whereas, Booking.com B.V.'s ("Booking.com") Reconsideration Request, Request 13-5, sought reconsideration of the ICANN staff action of 26 February 2013, when the results of the String Similarity Panel were posted for the New gTLD Program, placing the applications for .hotels and .hoteis into a string similarity contention set. Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 13-5. Whereas, the BGC recommended that Reconsideration Request 13-5 be denied because Booking.com has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration. Resolved (2013.09.10.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-5, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… [PDF, 117 KB]. c. GAC Communiqué Durban - Scorecard Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a Communiqué on 18 July 2013 ("Durban Communiqué"). Whereas, on 1 August 2013, ICANN posted the Durban Communiqué and officially notified applicants of the advice <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-01aug13-en>, triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1. Whereas, the NGPC met on 12 August 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, transmitted to the Board through its Durban Communiqué. Whereas, the NGPC has considered the applicant responses submitted during the 21- day applicant response period, and the NGPC has identified items of advice in the attached scorecard where its position is consistent with the GAC's advice in the Durban Communiqué. Whereas, the NGPC developed a scorecard to respond to the GAC's advice in the Durban Communiqué similar to the one used to address the Beijing Advice as well as during the GAC and the Board meetings in Brussels on 28 February and 1 March 2011, and has identified where the NGPC's position is consistent with GAC advice, noting those as "1A" items. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.09.10.NG03), the NGPC adopts the "ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee Scorecard in response to GAC Durban Communiqué" (10 September 2013), attached as Annex 1 to this Resolution, in response to the items of GAC advice in the Durban Communiqué as presented in the scorecard. d. GAC Communiqué Beijing - Scorecard No resolution taken. e. GAC Communiqué Beijing - Category 1 No resolution taken. f. ALAC Statement on the Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention No resolution taken. g. ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation No resolution taken. h. AOB No resolution taken. Published on 12 September 2013

1 0

Consultation on gTLD Delegation and Redelegation User Instructions and Source of Policy and Procedures
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10sep13-en.htm Consultation on gTLD Delegation and Redelegation User Instructions and Source of Policy and Procedures Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 10 September 2013 Comment Close Date: 1 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 2 October 2013 Reply Close Date: 22 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10sep13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): A consultation on User Instructions and Source of Policy for Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD). Current Status: Initial public consultation Next Steps: Review comments received Staff Contact: Michelle Cotton Email Staff Contact<mailto:michelle.cotton@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Consultation%20on%20gTLD%20Delegation%20and%20Redelegation%20User%20Instructions%20and%20Source%20of%20Policy%20and%20Procedures%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract (SA1301-12-CN-0035<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order>) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to maintain the continuity and stability of services related to certain interdependent Internet technical management functions, known collectively as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority calls for a public consultation from all interested and affected parties to help satisfy the following objective: C.2.6 Transparency and Accountability — [No later than 1 October 2013], the Contractor shall develop performance standards, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3, develop user instructions including technical requirements for each corresponding IANA function and post via a website. C.2.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders – [No later than 1 October 2013], the contractor shall, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.C, develop for each of the IANA functions a process for documenting the source of the policies and procedures and how it will apply the relevant policies and procedures for the corresponding IANA function and post via a website. This consultation involves the operation of the Delegations and Redelegations of Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) described in the IANA functions contract as the following: C.2.9.2.d Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) ‑ The Contractor shall verify that all requests related to the delegation and redelegation of gTLDs are consistent with the procedures developed by ICANN. In making a delegation or redelegation recommendation, the Contractor must provide documentation verifying that ICANN followed its own policy framework including specific documentation demonstrating how the process provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders and was supportive of the global public interest. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report. Section II: Background: This is one of a series of consultations to establish user instructions and source of policy for the delivery of the IANA functions, as described in contract SA1301-12-CN-0035. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Consultation on Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) User Instructions and Source of Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13-en.…> [PDF, 167 KB] * User Documentation on Delegating and Redelegating Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD)<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/gtld-drd-ui-10sep13-en.pdf> [PDF, 295 KB] * Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 and related documents<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> Section IV: Additional Information: None ________________________________ (*) 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 this period lapses. 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

A (modest) report of the ccNSO Council meeting, 10 September 13
by john＠crediblecontext.com Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

All, The meeting of the ccNSO Council was a quiet affair. It was Byron Holland's first meeting as chair. He is, as you know, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, manager of .ca. A few things to note, however. First, the Council is moving on the JIG cross-community working group letter the GNSO Council has already approved. Second, they accepted the memberships application from Montenegro (country code .me). And third, I thought you like to see the workplan report the Council uses to manage its projects. Different than that which we employ, but to the same effect. Cheers, John Berard

1 0

Resolutions from 22 August 2013 ICANN Board Meeting
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 9, 2013

Sept. 9, 2013

Hello All, See below for the resolutions from the 22 August 2013 Board meeting. Areas of interest to the GNSO included: - FY14 budget was approved - Renewal of .info, .org, and .biz agreements approved Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-22aug13-en.htm 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes Resolved (2013.08.22.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 27 June Special Meeting of the ICANN Board. b. FY14 Budget Approval Whereas, the draft FY14 Operating Plan and Budget was posted for public comment in accordance with the Bylaws on 10 May 2013, which was based upon numerous community consultations, and consultations throughout ICANN staff and the Board Finance Committee, during the past fiscal year. Whereas, intervening activities, and comments received from the public comment forum resulted in some significant revisions to the 10 May 2013 draft FY14 Operating Plan and Budget. Whereas, due to the revisions to the draft FY Operating Plan and Budget communicated during the Durban meeting on 17 July 2013, ICANN re-opened the public comment forum until 4 August 2013. Whereas, in addition to the public comment forum, ICANN actively solicited community feedback and consultation with the ICANN community by other means, including online conference calls, meetings in Beijing and Durban, and email communications. Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has discussed, and guided staff on, the development of the FY14 Operating Plan and Budget at each of its recent, regularly scheduled meetings. Whereas, the Board Finance Committee met on 7 August 2013 to discuss the final draft FY14 Operating Plan and Budget, and recommended that the Board adopt the FY14 Operating Plan and Budget. Whereas, per section 3.9 of the 2001, 2009 and 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreements, respectively, the Board is to establish the Registrar Variable Accreditation Fees, which must be established in order to develop the annual budget. Whereas, the description of the Registrar fees, including the recommended Registrar Variable Accreditation Fees, for FY14 has been included in the FY14 Operating Plan and Budget. Resolved (2013.08.22.02), the Board adopts the FY14 Operating Plan and Budget and in doing so establishes the Variable Accreditation Fees (per registrar and transaction) as set forth in the FY14 Operating Plan and Budget. c. Approval of Contract with General Contractor for Los Angeles Office Expansion Whereas, on 2 February 2013, the Board approved amending the lease for ICANN's Los Angeles office to include an additional 5800 square feet. Whereas, construction is required to make the additional square footage usable. Whereas, ICANN has received a construction proposal that is in alignment with the design of the current office space. Resolved (2013.08.22.03), the President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to enter into an agreement between ICANN and Cannon Constructors Group South, Inc. in an amount not to exceed [redacted], and to make all disbursements over US$500,000, if necessary, in furtherance of the agreement. Resolved (2013.08.22.04), pursuant to Article III, Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, portions of this resolution and rationale may be redacted and kept confidential until the President and CEO deems it is appropriate to release such redacted information. d. Redelegation of the .BW domain representing Botswana Resolved (2013.08.22.05), as part of the exercise of its responsibilities under the IANA Functions Contract, ICANN has reviewed and evaluated the request to redelegate the .BW country-code top-level domain to Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority. The documentation demonstrates that the proper procedures were followed in evaluating the request. Resolved (2013.08.22.06), the Board directs that pursuant to Article III, Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, that certain portions of the rationale not appropriate for public distribution within the resolutions, preliminary report or minutes at this time due to contractual obligations, shall be withheld until public release is allowed pursuant to those contractual obligations. e. Redelegation of the .PT domain representing Portugal Resolved (2013.08.22.07), as part of the exercise of its responsibilities under the IANA Functions Contract, ICANN has reviewed and evaluated the request to redelegate the .PT country-code top- level domain to Associação DNS.PT. The documentation demonstrates that the proper procedures were followed in evaluating the request. Resolved (2013.08.22.08), the Board directs that pursuant to Article III, Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, that certain portions of the rationale not appropriate for public distribution within the resolutions, preliminary report or minutes at this time due to contractual obligations, shall be withheld until public release is allowed pursuant to those contractual obligations. 2. Main Agenda: a. Ombudsman FY13 At-Risk Compensation - EXECUTIVE SESSION Whereas, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board approve payment to the Ombudsman of his FY13 at-risk compensation. Resolved (2013.08.22.09), the Board hereby approves a payment to the Ombudsman of his FY13 at-risk compensation component. b. Renewal of .INFO Registry Agreement Whereas, ICANN conducted a public comment period from 3 June 2013 to 15 July 2013 <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/info-renewal-03jun13-en.htm> on a proposed agreement for renewal of the 2006 .INFO Registry Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/info>. Whereas, the proposed renewal .INFO Registry Agreement includes modified provisions to bring the .INFO Registry Agreement into line with other comparable agreements as well as additional provisions of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. Whereas, the public comment forum on the proposed renewal .INFO Registry Agreement closed on 15 July 2013 with ICANN receiving two comments. A summary and analysis of the comments was provided to the Board. Whereas, the Board has determined that no revisions to the proposed .INFO renewal Registry Agreement are necessary after taking the comments into account. Whereas, the proposed renewal .INFO Registry Agreement includes significant improvements as compared to the current .INFO Registry Agreement. Resolved (2013.08.22.10), the proposed renewal .INFO Registry Agreement is approved, and the President, Generic Domains Division and the General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement. c. Renewal of .ORG Registry Agreement Whereas, ICANN conducted a public comment period from 21 June 2013 to 12 August 2013 <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/org-renewal-21jun13-en.htm> on a proposed agreement for renewal of the 2006 .ORG Registry Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org>. Whereas, the proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement includes modified provisions to bring the .ORG Registry Agreement into line with other comparable agreements as well as additional provisions of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. Whereas, the public comment forum on the proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement closed on 12 August 2013 with ICANN receiving one comment. A summary and analysis of this comment was provided to the Board. Whereas, the Board has determined that no revisions to the proposed renewal .ORG renewal Registry Agreement are necessary after taking the comments into account. Whereas, the proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement includes significant improvements as compared to the current .ORG Registry Agreement. Resolved (2013.08.22.11), the proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement is approved, and the President, Generic Domains Division and the General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the .ORG Registry Agreement. d. Renewal of .BIZ Registry Agreement Whereas, ICANN conducted a public comment period from 3 June 2013 to 15 July 2013 <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/biz-renewal-03jun13-en.htm> on a proposed agreement for renewal of the 2006 .BIZ Registry Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/biz>. Whereas, the proposed renewal .BIZ Registry Agreement includes modified provisions to bring the .BIZ Registry Agreement into line with other comparable agreements as well as additional provisions of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. Whereas, the public comment forum on the proposed renewal .BIZ Registry Agreement closed on 15 July 2013, with ICANN receiving three comments. A summary and analysis of the comments was provided to the Board. Whereas, the Board has determined that no revisions to the proposed renewal .BIZ Registry Agreement are necessary after taking the comments into account. Whereas, the proposed renewal .BIZ Registry Agreement includes significant improvements as compared to the current .BIZ Registry Agreement. Resolved (2013.08.22.12), the proposed renewal .BIZ Registry Agreement is approved, and the President, Generic Domains Division and the General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the .BIZ Registry Agreement. Published on 26 August 2013

1 0

Agenda of new gTLD Program Committee - 10 Sept 2013
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 9, 2013

Sept. 9, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-10sep13-en.h… 10 September 2013 Consent Agenda: . Approval of Minutes Main Agenda: . Update on String Similarity . BGC recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-5 . GAC Communiqué Durban - Comprehensive Review of the Scorecard . GAC Communiqué Beijing - Comprehensive Review of the Scorecard . GAC Communiqué Beijing - Category 1 . ALAC Statement on the Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention . ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation . AOB

1 0

RE: SCI Charter Revisions
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 9, 2013

Sept. 9, 2013

Dear Ron, Thank-you again for this letter. As you will no doubt by now be aware, the Council did discuss the SCI and the important questions you have raised in your communication below. Essentially the Council agreed the following: 1. That the Charter of the SCI should be modified to confirm that the SCI is a standing committee and; 2. That the Council would like the SCI to undertake the work to propose the above and any other changes it deems necessary and then to submit these to the Council and; 3. That the SCI should not propose to modify the decision making methodology (away from full consensus) as the GNSO Council will consider this particular issue further. Noting: That should the decision be made to move from full consensus in future, that should be a decision for the GNSO Council. I trust that you will find this response and the associated guidance helpful. In addition, please could you convey my thanks on behalf of the Council to the SCI for their work to date and on-going contribution. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 02 September 2013 03:44 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: SCI Charter Revisions Importance: High Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Sessions in Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful to more formally seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. One aspect, in particular, based on the discussion in Durban, seems clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee'. We would like the Charter to reflect that, should that indeed be the case. (I refer you to the email on this topic that I sent you on 08 July 2013, just prior to Durban.) At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for decision-making ('full consensus' versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the SCI's August 6th meeting and since then on our mailing list, members expressed an interest in helping guide the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel there should or should not be full consensus. The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using "full or unanimous consensus" or "rough or near consensus" came from my request, as in-coming SCI Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki since the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated. I also noted at the time, and do so here again for Council's edification, the SCI Charter is further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within the SCI came in two forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to unanimous consensus "improves our product" because it ensures that the Committee dedicates the time to explore all points of view and works to find stronger outcomes; the arguments against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need, or that any member choosing to remain steadfast in opposition could capture the SCI process. All SCI members however respect that balanced discussions result in consensus - in some form - leading to better appreciation of each member's contributions, more confidence in the Committee itself and in the process. The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent defined in the Guidelines, 'rough or near consent' (defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows 'full or unanimous consent'. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN's inception. 'Near consensus', provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group's position, while it also provides for written rationale entered into the public record for any and all dissenting opinion(s), thus providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it in coming to its own determinations. Notably, the SCI does not make any determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council, which it, in turn, discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems appropriate. On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform your discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the Council on the Charter and consensus issues, if so requested. We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the SCI Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Andruff SCI Chair Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com

1 0

Fwd: uniformity of reporting charter drafting team -- be careful not to equate small turnout with lack of interest
by Volker Greimann Sept. 9, 2013

Sept. 9, 2013

Dear fellow councillors, incoming councillor Mikey O'Connor has asked me to forward the below message to you regarding the discussion we had last week on the low participation for the charter drafting team regarding the uniformity of reporting pdp. Best, Volker -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: uniformity of reporting charter drafting team -- be careful not to equate small turnout with lack of interest Datum: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 17:44:28 -0500 Von: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> An: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net>, Osvaldo Novoa <onovoa(a)antel.com.uy> Kopie (CC): ispcp-private(a)bgnws.com -- new <ispcp-private(a)bgnws.com>, Berry Cobb <mail(a)berrycobb.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> hi Volker and Osvaldo, i'm just listening to the part of the Council meeting where the debate was whether there isn't sufficient interest in the uniformity of reporting issue. if i had been on the call i'd have made the point that there's a difference between low turnout for a drafting team and low turnout for the actual working group. i think part of the reason for the small drafting-team turnout may be because people figured it wasn't too complicated a charter to write, and so people conserved their time/bandwidth for other issues. there are six people signed up for the drafting team (i'm one of them) and i think that would be a sufficient group to do a pretty good job of coming up with this (not too complicated) charter. could one of you guys carry that forward at the next Council meeting, if the Council gets ready to kill this initiative? i would hate to see the project thrown out just because there aren't many drafting-team volunteers -- that's a bad indicator of interest/importance in my view. thanks, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

1 0