March 2010 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

ENC: [liaison6c] FYI - New GNSO Constituency Notice of Intent - Public Internet Access, Cyber Café Constituency
by Jaime Plug In March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

I keep thinking if they dont fit in a broader ISP definition and couldnt sit in the ISPCP Jaime Wagner <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br Cel (51) 8126-0916 Fax (51) 3123-1708 De: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Robert Hoggarth Enviada em: segunda-feira, 8 de março de 2010 17:50 Para: liaison6c Cc: Robert Hoggarth Assunto: [liaison6c] FYI - New GNSO Constituency Notice of Intent - Public Internet Access, Cyber Café Constituency Dear GNSO Constituency Leaders and Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Notice of Intent to Form a New GNSO Constituency (NOIF) submitted by Amrita Choudury of the Cyber Café Association of India proposing to form a new Public Internet Access/Cybercafé ecosystem Constituency. As some of you may recall, the NOIF document is an informal expression of interest that does not require any action. The intent of this first step is simply to spur community dialogue and reaction to the proposal. The NOIF and cover letter have also been posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm. This proposal has been shared with Board members and the GNSO Council. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth

1 0

VI motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Dear All: please find attached a comment from the ISPCP constituency regarding the motion on vertical integration. <<ISPCP-VI-comment.doc>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Accountability & Transparency Review
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 8, 2010

March 8, 2010

Dear all, You'll find all GNSO applications on the following website. http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

AW: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 6, 2010

March 6, 2010

Thanks Tony, I suggest we should briefly discuss our position during today's ISPCP call scheduled at 14:00 UTC Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar] Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2010 18:33 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com Betreff: Re: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5 Wolf-Ulrich, I am sorry about delaying on this, but have been scrambling to coordinate pending issues related to my day job, prior to leaving for Nairobi on Wednesday evening. I am not uncomfortable with the text of Objective 5 as supported by the NCSG, the RrSG and the RySG. (See the first text below) The IPC and BC propose alternative text for Objective 5. (See the second text below). If any of you feel we should support this alternative text, please say so asap. Regards Tony Harris Objective 5[1]: Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date, determine whether the changes to the current restrictions and/or practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, non-discriminatory access contained in the options set out in the most recent version of the DAG and supporting documents constitute a material deviation from current and past restrictions and practices regarding registry-registrar separation. IPC-BC alternate version: "Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date, determine the possible effects of potential changes to the current restrictions and/or practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, non-discriminatory access contained in the options set out in DAGv3 and changes considered by ICANN staff on (a) the retail and wholesale markets for domain names and (b) on registrants of domain names, and (c) and on Internet users in general." Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> To: <harris(a)cabase.org.ar> Cc: <jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br>; <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:51 AM Subject: WG: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5 Tony, As you're a member of the VI chartering team: what could be the ISPCP position regarding the two alternatives? Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de [mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de] Gesendet: Samstag, 27. Februar 2010 15:00 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5 -----Original Message----- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:53:09 +0100 Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5 From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10(a)icann.org>, "Jaime Wagner" <jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br>, "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ISP" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de> Copying GNSO Councilors from the ISPCPC, to again ask, where do the ISPs stand on this issue? Regardless, relegating one position to a footnote is not the most neutral way to present both alternatives to Council. They should be presented as equal alternatives with a showing of who supported each one. There should also be some explanation of what the difference is between the two. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com [1] FROM: owner-gnso-vi-feb10(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Stéphane Van Gelder SENT: Friday, February 26, 2010 6:34 AM TO: briancute(a)afilias.info CC: Gnso-vi-feb10(a)icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5 Thanks Brian, I know you worked hard to get feedback from your group to us, so thanks for those efforts. As it stands, we have support for version 1 of Obj 5 (the so-called Milton-Avri version) from a numerical majority of the groups represented on this DT: the NCSG, the RrSG and the RySG. The IPC and the BC have indicated they support the other version. I am unwilling, at this stage, to open up a whole new discussion on voting thresholds and the way to best represent this split. Also, I am keen not to go over the deadline this group has to go back to Council with a charter proposal (today). As such, I have asked Margie to draw up a final version of the charter using version 1 of objective 5 but with a footnote listing version 2 and explaining that the group did not reach consensus on this objective, but that there was a numerical majority for it with support from the NCSG, RrSG and RySG while the BC and the IPC supported the other version. Although this does mean the DT is going back to the Council with a charter that is not completely final, I do not see any other way of moving ahead within our set deadlines, whilst still making sure the various views of DT members are represented. I will apologize to the Council on behalf of the DT about not delivering a completely finalised charter and explain what I have just explained here. As there will be Council discussion on this, I would encourage you to brief your councillors so that they may highlight the reasons why your groups went for whatever version of Obj 5 they choose when the Council comes to open up discussion on this item. I want to thank you all for the work we have been able to do together. I hope you have found my participation to be helpful to the group and as neutral as the coordinator position requires. Stéphane Le 26 févr. 2010 à 12:26, Brian Cute a écrit : The comments received from registries in the RySG support version #1 of the proposed Objective 5 statements. Regards, Brian Links: ------ [1] http://rodenbaugh.com/

2 1

Vertical Integration charter
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 6, 2010

March 6, 2010

All: I drafted the comment attached regarding objective 5 and would like to ask for your comments/amendments in order to prepare this for the council meeting next week. <<ISPCP-VI-comment.doc>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0