November 2009 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Change of time for conference call
by Tony Holmes Aug. 3, 2010

Aug. 3, 2010

All Those of us in Seoul discussed holding a conference call on Friday 6th November at 13.00 UTC. Tony Harris has since advised that he will be unable to join at that time as it clashes with an important OSC work team call. Therefore I propose that we change the time of this call to 14.30 UTC. Call in details will be circulated shortly. Regards Tony

9 36

Charter
by Tony Holmes Dec. 1, 2009

Dec. 1, 2009

All Since the conference call which considered final amendments to the revised ISPCP Charter attention has been focused elsewhere, but we must finalise the draft and formally submit it. The final version showing the latest amendments is attached. Please forward any comments to me by 30th November when I plan to submit this to the ICANN staff. Regards Tony

3 4

DOODLE / Next ISPCP call
by Gisella Gruber-White Nov. 30, 2009

Nov. 30, 2009

Dear All, Please complete the attached Doodle poll in order to schedule the next ISPCP call prior to the GNSO Council call. http://www.doodle.com/ss4x8a222ynzhubq This Doodle poll will close on Thursday 12 November at 1700 UTC and the meeting invitation will be sent out shortly thereafter. Thank you Kind regards Gisella ---------------------------- Gisella Gruber-White On behalf of GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: gisella.gruber-white(a)icann.org Tel: +44 7545 334 360 Skype ID: gisella.gw

2 3

WG: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Nov. 30, 2009

Nov. 30, 2009

Dear colleagues, I forward this message to you asking for comments on the question of urgency of the subject. My personal opinion is that from an ISPCP point of view the council should carefully discuss the item rather to decide on a PDP initiation in a hurry. So if I don't get different opinion from your side by Tuesday next week I'll Chuck inform accordingly Thanks and have a nice weekend Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 22:20 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars In anticipation of receiving the Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars Issues Report the end of next week (4 Dec), the current Bylaws require "the Council shall meet within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of such Report to vote on whether to initiate the PDP." That means we need a motion (or motions) for our next meeting on 17 Dec. It seems to me that for an issue like this that will be somewhat complicated, making a decision on initiating a PDP within as little as 13 days of receiving the issues report may be challenging, and even more so this time of year. Also, we will not have finished our project prioritization exercise by then. On the other hand, to the extent that a PDP could possibly result in delays of the introduction of new gTLDs, I think we don't want to contribute to any more delays if avoidable. So I am requesting Councilors to express your opinions in this regard. Should we consider deferring the PDP decision until January or should we vote on whether to initiate a PDP in our 17 Dec meeting? Note that we have two meetings in January on the 7th and the 28th. Your thoughts are requested. Chuck

5 4

Root scaling Study report
by Tony Holmes Nov. 29, 2009

Nov. 29, 2009

The attached document is submitted on behalf of the ISPCP Constituency. Tony Holmes Chairman ISPCP

1 0

Comments on root scaling report - Urgent
by Tony Holmes Nov. 27, 2009

Nov. 27, 2009

All Attached is a draft statement prepared within the ISPCP on the root scaling study. Apologies for the short time frame, but please let me have any final comment by return email. This has to be submitted to ICANN by 29th May. Thanks Tony

1 0

Expression of interest Group
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Nov. 19, 2009

Nov. 19, 2009

Dear Colleagues, Here you can find the report of the EOI group which I attach: http://forum.icann.org/lists/eoi-new-gtlds/msg00015.html <<EOI-group-report.pdf>> Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Conference call Nov 19
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Nov. 16, 2009

Nov. 16, 2009

In preparation for our next call I attach the agenda for the council meeting on Nov 23. <<GNSO Council Teleconference Agenda 231109.doc>> Furtheron I would be interested to discuss the following items: - status and outcome so far from the "Expression of interest" team (Tony Harris?). Should we comment as constituency? - other items open for public comment: NomCom, Board, SSAC reviews (22 Nov); new gTLD applicant guidebook ( 22 Nov); root scaling model, root scaling study reports (29 Nov) - travel support for ICANN 37 and future meetings. As basis for discussion I attach a meeting schedule <<ICANN_meetings.xls>> Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

WG: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

Hi everyone, I'd like to keep you informed about a recently started council discussion on the "Expressions of Interest" Group which is supposed to provide a plan for implementing the related Seoul board resolution. I know from the BC that there is rumor and some confusion regarding the approach. The GNSO and in particular the council are not yet involved (Stephane is not an official observer). See some info attached. I understand that everyone having an interest can contact the group through dedicated "contact points". Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. November 2009 00:51 An: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Stéphane Van Gelder; council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: AW: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group I understand the interest of potential applicants to have an EoI solution provided as soon as possible although the board has not yet decided upon, and I welcome this initiative. On the other hand the approach of this group formation looks a bit strange to me. From the membership structure they looks lik a GNSO WG (I wonder whether it has been discussed within the constituencies/SGs). They also request ICANN staff ressources which are needed for other activities already in the pipe. Has this already been accepted by ICANN? Ressources are rare. Is this the way to organize the WG-model based work in future? I don't think so. I thought there is a commitment of the GNSO as well as the board on how to deal with policy development issues. If we start it this way we may be confronted with more particular interest groups in future trying to bypass the GNSO. Anyway, before we decide to get engaged we should be clear whether and to what extent the EoI is of interest for our work. Comments welcome. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 21:37 An: Stéphane Van Gelder; council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in developing input to ICANN processes. I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod, Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI effort. In that letter they said, "Our consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say 'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise. Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws. Because we have not received a request to provide an observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand that before making any decisions. Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a representative from the Council. Other thoughts are welcome. Chuck _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:35 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hello all. Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board resolutions from the Seoul meeting. Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the group. If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group, I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Antony Van Couvering <HYPERLINK "mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com"avc(a)mindsandmachines.com> Date : 6 novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC À : Liz Williams <HYPERLINK "mailto:lizawilliams@mac.com"lizawilliams(a)mac.com> Cc : Jothan Frakes <HYPERLINK "mailto:jothan@mindsandmachines.com"jothan(a)mindsandmachines.com>, Alexander Schwertner <HYPERLINK "mailto:as@epag.de"as(a)epag.de>, HYPERLINK "mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com"bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com, Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek <HYPERLINK "mailto:lenz@dotberlin.de"lenz(a)dotberlin.de>, Nick Wood <HYPERLINK "mailto:nick.wood@comlaude.com"nick.wood(a)comlaude.com>, HYPERLINK "mailto:mcgradyp@gtlaw.com"mcgradyp(a)gtlaw.com, Stéphane Van Gelder <HYPERLINK "mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com"stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Ruiz Tim <HYPERLINK "mailto:tim@godaddy.com"tim(a)godaddy.com> Objet : Update on "Expressions of Interest" Group Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your willingness to work with us going forward. Jothan and I and Liz Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I attach them here: 1. Our charter 2. Our draft proposal, incorporating input taken during our first meeting If you have comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference, which will be Monday, Nov. 16. We have set ourselves a tight schedule (see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution). In addition to confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the attached documents. We think it's representative of a good cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse, and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus. We don't know how many will agree but we hope most. One of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first call, scheduled for Monday. I am of course available for questions, as is Liz. Thanks for your participation, Antony

1 0

Item for next GNSO call
by Tony Holmes Nov. 7, 2009

Nov. 7, 2009

All The attached document will be discussed on the next ISPCP call. You will shortly receive a doodle from staff offering various dates/times for that call. Please review the document in advance as this will be discussed at the next Council meeting on 23rd November. Regards Tony

1 0