July 2009 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

NOMCOM
by Anthony Harris July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

I hereby nominate Tony Holmes to be the ISPCP representative to the NOMCOM. Tony Harris

1 0

FW: Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes - clarification
by Tony Holmes July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

Dear ISPCP members The following information was sent by Philip Sheppard to the Board following considerable dialogue between the BC, the IP and ISPCP constituency reps to the Council. We originally asked for this information to be conveyed to the Board when they were informed of the outcome of the vote, but that request was refused. Hence the separate mailing. There are still unresolved issues with the revised bylaws so we were unable to offer support. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: 15 July 2009 08:49 To: secretary(a)icann.org; 'Peter Dengate Thrush'; 'Roberto Gaetano' Cc: Kristina Rosette IPC; 'Tony Holmes' Subject: Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes - clarification To the Board; This constitutes additional notification to the Board, to the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area, on the motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support of GNSO restructuring as mandated by the Board. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note there was considerable unease about the GNSO Council taking this vote before the closure of public comments and while key by-laws changes (Board seats, NCSG seating) were not yet embedded in proposed text. The vote taken was technically a pass at a barely quorate meeting. The following may be of assistance to the Board in understanding the level of support of the GNSO vote: 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour. Philip Sheppard

1 0

Updated CSG Charter
by Tony Holmes July 13, 2009

July 13, 2009

Dear ISPCP members Attached is the revised CSG Charter that has now been reviewed by representatives of the BC, IP and ISPCP following the Board's input on the original draft. If you have any comments or issues with this, please inform me by end of the day on Thursday (9th). Thanks Tony

1 0

FW: [CG-GOVERNANCA] comentários da ccNSO em relação ao CountryNames
by Jaime Wagner July 8, 2009

July 8, 2009

FYI Jaime Wagner ISPs Representative CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Commitee) jaime(a)cgi.br +55(51)8126-0916 jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br +55(51)3123-1701 New gTLDs - Draft Applicant Guidebook Input from ccNSO Council on Country/Territory Names The ccNSO wishes to reiterate the comments made in its submissions of 15 December 2008 and 9 April 2009 and add the following comments which are limited to the use of country/territory names in top level domains, and are not intended to address the use of city or regional names. Today ICANN distinguishes between two categories of TLDs ? ccTLDs and gTLDs. ccTLDs set their policy within territory and in consultation with their local Internet community, including government. gTLDs are governed by ICANN policies and contractual terms. The ?g? in gTLDs stands for ?generic?, and today all of the gTLDs1 are generic terms such as info, museum, com, biz etc. It is the view of the ccNSO Council that to allow the ?given names? of countries to be defined as generic (and thus delegated as gTLDs), is illogical and incompatible with any normal understanding of the term generic. Allowing a TLD representing a meaningful representation of a country to be a gTLD is likely to create a situation where ICANN will be caught up in the internal policy of a country. It is highly likely that the government will at some stage want to have policy input into what a country TLD is used for or expect it to be answerable under national law. A change in government could radically affect the official position within the country regarding the gTLD which in turn could adversely affect the stability and integrity of the DNS. Further, there will be significant confusion caused for Internet users if some country names are ccTLDs under local law and with local policies, while other country TLDs are gTLDs bound by ICANN?s policy processes, including policy for registrar accreditation, dispute resolution and WHOIS. Janis Karklins stated in his letter from GAC of 24 April that the rights of a sovereign state or territory cannot be limited or made conditional by ICANN's procedures and that geographic names are special cases and should have special rules applying to them. The GAC further states: ?The ccNSO has proposed that country or territory names on the ISO-list are treated as ccTLDs. This seems to be a sensible approach to ensure that geographic names are afforded sufficient protection.? In light of this, the ccNSO Council strongly believe that its earlier input should be given serious consideration when revising the DAG, v3. Finally, in relation to item 2.1.1.4 of the DAG we conclude that the current formulation proposed for defining country names does not cover the same terms that were protected by the earlier definition of ?meaningful representation?. While we understand the desire for a defined list, we believe that it is important to keep the fundamental principles associated with national sovereignty firmly in view. Lists can often easily be circumvented and not respond to reasonable expectations from the governments or users based in the country concerned. New TLD applications will not be processed automatically so there is no need for a defined list The list creation formula itself is very complicated. It should also be noted that parties not currently involved in this process will not yet have had the opportunity to check that all meaningful representations of their country names are properly protected in these lists.

1 0

FW: [council] Updated motion for 9 July
by Tony Holmes July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

Dear ISPCP members Please note that your GNSO councilors will be asked to vote on the motion below covering the proposed bylaw changes on July 9th. Could you please review the existing draft bylaws and the edits that have been proposed and posted since the Sydney meeting and respond to the list if you have any comments or issues. The link to the proposed bylaws is at the bottom of this email. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 03 July 2009 04:29 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Updated motion for 9 July Hi, The motion that was made by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes on 24 June and deferred due to constituencies needing more time to review, has been updated in: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?09_july_motions to refer to the draft of the bylaws as posted by the Staff in: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200907.html#gnso-restr ucture . It currently reads: By-Law Changes (deferred from 24 June 2009) Motion made by: Avri Doria Seconded by: Chuck Gomes Whereas On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan to restructuring of the GNSO; and On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee was open to council members as well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO Committee of the Whole; and On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole. Resolved The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws related to the GNSO council be amended to read as documented in: http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clean -30jun09-en.pdf

1 0