Re: [council] Future GNSO Activity? Re - .job Reconsideration Request
Hi Stephane I hosted a workshop in Catragena on Consumer Choice and Trust as per AoC This topic came up as one of our discussion points I'd be happy to take responsibilty for progressing this work in GNSO and with the other groups if that would be of assistance Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:45:51 To: Neuman, Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Cc: 'GNSO Council'<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Future GNSO Activity? Re - .job Reconsideration Request Thanks Jeff. I am working on the agenda for our next Council meeting and the two Cartagena Board resolutions that referenced the GNSO will be included in that agenda as discussion items. There's res8, as you mention, and res6, where the Board is asking that Resolved (2010.12.10.30), the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2010. There's actually very little time for us to start working on this and be ready by SF. As people wind down from the Cartagena meeting, it's possibly not the best time to start looking at these two action items right now. But I will be asking the Council to do so in the upcoming weeks and, as mentioned, I would then like us to discuss during our Jan 13 meeting. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12 déc. 2010 à 16:12, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
FYI, saw this resolution passed on the reconsideration request for a registry service by .jobs. Although the reconsideration request was denied, there is a reference in the BGC recommendation that asks the GNSO to consider a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or stated purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD.
The BGC report can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/bgc-recommendation-09dec1.... The Resolution is below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. Response to Reconsideration Request 10-2
Whereas, the BGC has reviewed and considered Reconsideration Request 10-2 submitted by the .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition on 20 August 2010 (supplemented as posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/requests-for-reconsidera...>) concerning the Board's 5 August 2010 resolution approving Employ Media’s .JOBS Phased Allocation Program.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Request be denied as unsupported because: (i) the Coalition’s concerns regarding potential violations of the Charter in the implementation of the Phased Allocation Program is not a proper ground for reconsidering the Board’s 5 August 2010 Action; and (ii) the Board did not fail to consider material information available at the time of the Action.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Board direct the President and CEO, and General Counsel and Secretary, to ensure that ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Department closely monitor Employ Media’s compliance with its Charter.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced.
Whereas, the Reconsideration Request and the BGC's Recommendation has been posted on the ICANN website <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/requests-for-reconsidera...>.
Resolved (2010.12.10.35), the Board adopts the Recommendation of the BGC on Reconsideration Request 10-2.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
Hi Rosemary, Thanks for offering to take the lead on this. I think that would be most helpful. Would anyone else like to volunteer to work with Rosemary on this? Stéphane Le 12 déc. 2010 à 17:59, rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au a écrit :
Hi Stephane
I hosted a workshop in Catragena on Consumer Choice and Trust as per AoC
This topic came up as one of our discussion points
I'd be happy to take responsibilty for progressing this work in GNSO and with the other groups if that would be of assistance
Cheers
Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:45:51 +1100 To: Neuman, Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Cc: 'GNSO Council'<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Future GNSO Activity? Re - .job Reconsideration Request
Thanks Jeff.
I am working on the agenda for our next Council meeting and the two Cartagena Board resolutions that referenced the GNSO will be included in that agenda as discussion items.
There's res8, as you mention, and res6, where the Board is asking that Resolved (2010.12.10.30), the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2010.
There's actually very little time for us to start working on this and be ready by SF.
As people wind down from the Cartagena meeting, it's possibly not the best time to start looking at these two action items right now. But I will be asking the Council to do so in the upcoming weeks and, as mentioned, I would then like us to discuss during our Jan 13 meeting.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12 déc. 2010 à 16:12, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
FYI, saw this resolution passed on the reconsideration request for a registry service by .jobs. Although the reconsideration request was denied, there is a reference in the BGC recommendation that asks the GNSO to consider a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or stated purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD.
The BGC report can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/bgc-recommendation-09dec1.... The Resolution is below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. Response to Reconsideration Request 10-2
Whereas, the BGC has reviewed and considered Reconsideration Request 10-2 submitted by the .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition on 20 August 2010 (supplemented as posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/requests-for-reconsidera...>) concerning the Board's 5 August 2010 resolution approving Employ Media’s .JOBS Phased Allocation Program.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Request be denied as unsupported because: (i) the Coalition’s concerns regarding potential violations of the Charter in the implementation of the Phased Allocation Program is not a proper ground for reconsidering the Board’s 5 August 2010 Action; and (ii) the Board did not fail to consider material information available at the time of the Action.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Board direct the President and CEO, and General Counsel and Secretary, to ensure that ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Department closely monitor Employ Media’s compliance with its Charter.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced.
Whereas, the Reconsideration Request and the BGC's Recommendation has been posted on the ICANN website <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/requests-for-reconsidera...>.
Resolved (2010.12.10.35), the Board adopts the Recommendation of the BGC on Reconsideration Request 10-2.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
Rosemary, I can assist. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 2:22 PM To: rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Future GNSO Activity? Re - .job Reconsideration Request Hi Rosemary, Thanks for offering to take the lead on this. I think that would be most helpful. Would anyone else like to volunteer to work with Rosemary on this? Stéphane Le 12 déc. 2010 à 17:59, rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au a écrit : Hi Stephane I hosted a workshop in Catragena on Consumer Choice and Trust as per AoC This topic came up as one of our discussion points I'd be happy to take responsibilty for progressing this work in GNSO and with the other groups if that would be of assistance Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:45:51 +1100 To: Neuman, Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Cc: 'GNSO Council'<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Future GNSO Activity? Re - .job Reconsideration Request Thanks Jeff. I am working on the agenda for our next Council meeting and the two Cartagena Board resolutions that referenced the GNSO will be included in that agenda as discussion items. There's res8, as you mention, and res6, where the Board is asking that Resolved (2010.12.10.30), the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2010. There's actually very little time for us to start working on this and be ready by SF. As people wind down from the Cartagena meeting, it's possibly not the best time to start looking at these two action items right now. But I will be asking the Council to do so in the upcoming weeks and, as mentioned, I would then like us to discuss during our Jan 13 meeting. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12 déc. 2010 à 16:12, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : FYI, saw this resolution passed on the reconsideration request for a registry service by .jobs. Although the reconsideration request was denied, there is a reference in the BGC recommendation that asks the GNSO to consider a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or stated purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD. The BGC report can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/bgc-recommendation-09dec1.... The Resolution is below: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. Response to Reconsideration Request 10-2 Whereas, the BGC has reviewed and considered Reconsideration Request 10-2 submitted by the .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition on 20 August 2010 (supplemented as posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/requests-for-reconsidera...>) concerning the Board's 5 August 2010 resolution approving Employ Media's .JOBS Phased Allocation Program. Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Request be denied as unsupported because: (i) the Coalition's concerns regarding potential violations of the Charter in the implementation of the Phased Allocation Program is not a proper ground for reconsidering the Board's 5 August 2010 Action; and (ii) the Board did not fail to consider material information available at the time of the Action. Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Board direct the President and CEO, and General Counsel and Secretary, to ensure that ICANN's Contractual Compliance Department closely monitor Employ Media's compliance with its Charter. Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced. Whereas, the Reconsideration Request and the BGC's Recommendation has been posted on the ICANN website <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/requests-for-reconsidera...>. Resolved (2010.12.10.35), the Board adopts the Recommendation of the BGC on Reconsideration Request 10-2. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
Thanks for volunteering to help Debbie. Stéphane Le 13 déc. 2010 à 14:56, <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> a écrit :
Rosemary, I can assist. Debbie
Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross
Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 2:22 PM To: rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Future GNSO Activity? Re - .job Reconsideration Request
Hi Rosemary,
Thanks for offering to take the lead on this. I think that would be most helpful.
Would anyone else like to volunteer to work with Rosemary on this?
Stéphane
Le 12 déc. 2010 à 17:59, rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au a écrit :
Hi Stephane
I hosted a workshop in Catragena on Consumer Choice and Trust as per AoC
This topic came up as one of our discussion points
I'd be happy to take responsibilty for progressing this work in GNSO and with the other groups if that would be of assistance
Cheers
Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:45:51 +1100 To: Neuman, Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Cc: 'GNSO Council'<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Future GNSO Activity? Re - .job Reconsideration Request
Thanks Jeff.
I am working on the agenda for our next Council meeting and the two Cartagena Board resolutions that referenced the GNSO will be included in that agenda as discussion items.
There's res8, as you mention, and res6, where the Board is asking that Resolved (2010.12.10.30), the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2010.
There's actually very little time for us to start working on this and be ready by SF.
As people wind down from the Cartagena meeting, it's possibly not the best time to start looking at these two action items right now. But I will be asking the Council to do so in the upcoming weeks and, as mentioned, I would then like us to discuss during our Jan 13 meeting.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12 déc. 2010 à 16:12, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
FYI, saw this resolution passed on the reconsideration request for a registry service by .jobs. Although the reconsideration request was denied, there is a reference in the BGC recommendation that asks the GNSO to consider a process to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to change, an sTLD Charter or stated purpose of a sponsored, restricted or community-based TLD.
The BGC report can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/bgc-recommendation-09dec1.... The Resolution is below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. Response to Reconsideration Request 10-2
Whereas, the BGC has reviewed and considered Reconsideration Request 10-2 submitted by the .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition on 20 August 2010 (supplemented as posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/requests-for-reconsidera...>) concerning the Board's 5 August 2010 resolution approving Employ Media’s .JOBS Phased Allocation Program.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Request be denied as unsupported because: (i) the Coalition’s concerns regarding potential violations of the Charter in the implementation of the Phased Allocation Program is not a proper ground for reconsidering the Board’s 5 August 2010 Action; and (ii) the Board did not fail to consider material information available at the time of the Action.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Board direct the President and CEO, and General Counsel and Secretary, to ensure that ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Department closely monitor Employ Media’s compliance with its Charter.
Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Board direct the CEO to create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be commenced.
Whereas, the Reconsideration Request and the BGC's Recommendation has been posted on the ICANN website <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/requests-for-reconsidera...>.
Resolved (2010.12.10.35), the Board adopts the Recommendation of the BGC on Reconsideration Request 10-2.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
participants (3)
-
HughesDeb＠usa.redcross.org -
rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au -
Stéphane Van Gelder