June 2013 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Meting Invitation/ ISPCP Call / 10 September 2012 at 1400 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Aug. 11, 2013

Aug. 11, 2013

Dear All, Please note that the next ISPCP call is scheduled on Monday 10 September 2012 at 1400 UTC. To check your local time: http://tinyurl.com/8b9yr7a Please find the dial-in details below: Participant Passcode: Participant: 3429 # Dial-in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella ----------------- Gisella Gruber GNSO Secretariat Staff Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: gisella.gruber(a)icann.org<mailto:gisella.gruber@icann.org> Tel: +44 7545 334 360 Skype ID: gisella.gw

7 24

RV: Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation
by Novoa, Osvaldo June 30, 2013

June 30, 2013

All, Here is a motion that is being circulated in the Council proposing to modify ICANN's Bylaws. I am no in favour of it and would like to hear your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Viernes, 28 de Junio de 2013 09:46 Para: Neuman, Jeff; GNSO Council (council(a)gnso.icann.org) CC: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Asunto: [council] Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation All, Overnight I got some fantastic comments from several people about the motion, so I have made a couple of changes. Here is the new motion, with the changed parts in red. Basically I added a second sentence to the definition of the GNSO recognizing the role that the GNSO has with respect to providing advice on implementation of policies relating to generic TLDs. What that process is and how to delineate whether something is policy or implementation is being worked on by the Policy v. implementation Working Group we have set up, but as the BGC recognizes, the Board should be coming to the GNSO community for advice on implementation issues as well as policy issues. Again, to be clear, all this is saying is that IF the GNSO issues advice AND the Board acts inconsistent with that advice, the only thing the Board should do is meet with the GNSO in good faith, offer its reasons, and attempt to work out a solution. That's it. Seems like a no-brainer to me. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains; WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that "As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP"; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to: a) add a second sentence to Article X, Section 1 such that Section 1 would now read: "There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. The GNSO is also responsible for providing advice to the ICANN Board on the implementation of policies relating to generic top-level domains." b) include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO advice. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO advice, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO advice was not followed. FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:44 PM To: GNSO Council (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting Although I am sure that some on the Council will still disagree with the new rationale posted at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…, I believe the rationale is much more consistent with, and recognizes, the value of the multi-stakeholder model. The tone has been softened considerably and is much more respectful, in my opinion. In addition, the rationale upon my quick read seems to be technically correct. I am grateful to the Board Governance Committee for having taken some of our comments very seriously and for making the appropriate changes to the rationale. The one item I would still like to see addressed by the Council (other than the Policy v. Implementation discussions within the GNSO Working Group process) is formalizing the requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment requiring consultation of the GNSO if the Board proposes to take an action that is inconsistent with a policy or statement of the GNSO. I intend to draft that motion for the Council's consideration in Durban. To give all of the constituencies ample time to review the motion prior to Durban, although I am sure some will seek to defer the motion, claiming insufficient time to review, I am attaching this proposed resolution for consideration in Durban. I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions: WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains; WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that "As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP"; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO policies or recommendations. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO recommendations or policies, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed. FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

3 2

Mixer with NCSG - Durban
by WUKnoben June 27, 2013

June 27, 2013

Benedetta, from the ISPCP so far the following members confirmed to attend: Olivier Muron, French speaking mixer + CC breakfast Maemura Akinori mixer + CC breakfast Izumi Okutani mixer + CC breakfast Alain Bidron, French speaking CC breakfast Tony Holmes mixer + CC breakfast Tony Harris mixer + CC breakfast Mikey O’Connor mixer + CC breakfast Wolf-Ulrich Knoben mixer + CC breakfast Osvaldo Nuova mixer + CC breakfast Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

1 0

Fw: Mixer with NCSG - Durban
by WUKnoben June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013

Guys, please confirm your attendance to 1. the drinks (paid by your own, –1 taken by Mikey) 2. the cross constituency breakfast with the GAC Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Benedetta Rossi Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:15 PM To: 'Tony Holmes' ; 'Metalitz, Steven' ; 'Kristina Rosette' ; 'Wolf-Ulrich Knoben' ; 'Marilyn Cade ' ; 'Elisa Cooper' Subject: Mixer with NCSG - Durban Dear CSG Excomm, I am following up with you regarding the mixer scheduled in Durban with the NCSG. I would like to confirm that this event has been changed to informal drinks at the Rivets Bar of the Hilton Durban, on Tuesday July 16th, 2013 at 6:30 pm – 8:00 pm. Please do let your members know, we look forward to seeing you there! I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you to please let me know asap the names of the members confirmed for Durban so I can aggregate them to my list for the Cross Constituency breakfast with the GAC, and note which members are French speakers. Thank you ever so much for your help, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

RV: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3
by Novoa, Osvaldo June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013

For your information. Regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Maria Farrell Enviado el: Martes, 25 de Junio de 2013 17:49 Para: council(a)gnso.icann.org Asunto: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3 Dear Council colleagues, Below for your information is a copy of a letter sent on behalf of the NCSG to the Board of Directors, which was received by the Board (via Bruce Tonkin's kind intercession) on 19 June. Bruce says the Board would be interested to meet and discuss the broad concerns about the multistakeholder model raised in the reconsideration request, and also confirms that the request itself will be discussed at the BGC meeting of 25 June. If and when we have any scheduling information about a meeting with the Board, we will share it so that others may be aware. All the best, Maria Dear ICANN Board of Directors: I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3). The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion. This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse. The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording<http://t.co/ss2MwpdWEa> of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups. The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions. If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance. We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens. The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption. We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board. We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion. Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed. Truly, Robin Gross NCSG Chair ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

IDN Variants
by WUKnoben June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013

I think a while ago we tried starting to disuss the implications of active variant TLDs on ISP related activities. The item was picked up at the last council meeting. It was requested that the respective SGs/Const’s should provide comments on the analysis prepared by staff (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm…) with focus on the following questions: a) Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented), b) Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work If I recall correctly then Mikey provided already some comments. I’d like to join this effort and would encourage others to do so but would like to find those basics from Mikey who I’m sure would help?? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Fw: Public Comment:GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process
by WUKnoben June 23, 2013

June 23, 2013

FYI. This may be an item to discuss during the Durban meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben From: GNSO Secretariat Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:33 PM To: tony holmes ; Anthony Harris ; Wolf-Ulrich. Knoben (alternate) ; 'Novoa, Osvaldo' Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Public Comment:GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/structures-charter-22jun13-en.h… GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 22 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 28 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 29 August 2013 Reply Close Date: 18 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Board: Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) Categories/Tags: a.. Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): To solicit community feedback concerning a formalized process, proposed by the Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), for amending GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters. Current Status: After multiple iterations and thorough discussion by its members over several months, the SIC has approved a recommendation that a proposed GNSO Charter Amendment Procedure (described below) be posted for public comment. Next Steps: Upon receipt and review of community feedback pursuant to this solicitation, the SIC will determine if any substantive changes to the proposed procedure are advisable and will subsequently consider requesting ICANN Board approval of the process. Staff Contact: Robert Hoggarth Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section 5.3) state, "Each [GNSO] Stakeholder Group … and each of its associated Constituencies shall maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." During this time of significant organizational changes within ICANN and its GNSO community, it is important that Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies have the flexibility to update, modify and evolve their charters so that those governing documents remain accurate and viable. There is currently no formalized procedure for a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency to request recognition by the ICANN Board of Directors for a charter amendment. To address this procedural gap, the Board’s Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) has formulated a process (below) that is intended to accommodate the periodic need to amend charter documents with the ICANN Bylaws requirement for formal validation by the Board. GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process – As Proposed Phase I: Amendment Preparation GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies should formulate charter amendments through their own internal processes and notify policy-staff(a)icann.org upon initiation of such efforts. [Note: If the SG Charter requires it, proposed amendment(s) to Constituency Charters must first be submitted to the applicable SG for review and evaluation before being forwarded to Staff and Board.] Phase II: Staff Review Upon receipt of the proposed amendment(s), ICANN Staff will analyze the proposal and, within 10 business days, submit the community proposal with a report to the Board identifying any fiscal or liability concerns. Phase III: Public Comments After Board review of the Staff report and the proposed charter amendments, the Board will direct the opening of a Public Comment Forum. Upon its completion, within 30 calendar days, Staff will provide a report summarizing the community feedback. Phase IV: Board Review At the next available opportunity after the publication of the Staff report the Board shall either: 1.. Recognize the proposed charter amendment by a simple majority vote; or 2.. Reject the proposed amendment by a supermajority (2/3) vote and provide a specific rationale for its concerns. In its review of the proposed amendments, the ICANN Board may ask questions and otherwise consult with the affected SG or Constituency. If it is not feasible for the Board to take action on the proposed amendments after two meetings, the Board shall report to the affected SG or Constituency the circumstance(s) that prevented it from making a final action and its best estimate of the time required to reach an action. Section II: Background: In July 2009, as part of the comprehensive GNSO Improvements program, the ICANN Board approved the formal Charters of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) (see ICANN Board Resolution 2009.30.07.09). A Constituency Charter reconfirmation effort was initiated by a Board resolution at its 1 October 2008 meeting and discontinued in 2009 in favor of a new regular review cycle. During the intervening three years or so, there had been no additional formal charter activity until May 2012 at which time the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) submitted a set of changes to its charter. After discussing the substance of the RySG's amendments, the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) determined that a process should exist that would cause charter amendments to be formally reviewed not only by the Board, but the ICANN community as well before being finalized. The SIC has now asked the staff to seek community review and comment on the proposed process outlined above. Section III: Document and Resource Links: None Section IV: Additional Information: a.. SIC Meeting Minutes - 6 April 2013 b.. SIC Meeting Minutes - 28 March 2013 c.. SIC Meeting Minutes - 31 January 2013 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (*) 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fw: New Addition to the Policy Team - Mary Wong
by WUKnoben June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

I personally think this is a good and professional move for ICANN. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: David Olive Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:53 AM To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com ; kdrazek(a)verisign.com ; michele(a)blacknight.com ; robin(a)ipjustice.org ; william.drake(a)uzh.ch ; elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com ; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com ; krosette(a)cov.com ; cintra.sooknanan(a)gmail.com ; kdrstoll(a)gmail.com ; Mason Cole ; WUKnoben Cc: Robert Hoggarth ; Marika Konings ; Glen de Saint Géry ; Mary Wong Subject: New Addition to the Policy Team - Mary Wong Dear GNSO Council and SG/C Leaders: In advance of an official notice, I wish to let you know that our competitive search to fill the Senior Policy Director position has been completed. Mary Wong will be joining the policy team on 1 July 2013. She will be working under the direction of Marika in support of the policy work of the GNSO Council and SG/C groups. As many of you know, Mary served as Professor of Law, Faculty Chair for Global Intellectual Property Partnerships and Chair of Graduate Intellectual Property Programs, University of New Hampshire School of Law. She has been active within ICANN for many years as elected representative to the GNSO Council for the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG); active in various GNSO working groups and drafting teams; Chair of the NCSG Policy Council; and member of the 2009 Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT) at ICANN. A formal announcement to ICANN staff will be coming shortly. Best regards, David -- David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ICANN Regional Headquarters - Istanbul Mobile: 202.341.3611

1 0

link to the tentative agenda for our ISPCP meeting on Tuesday afternoon in Durban
by Mike O'Connor June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

hi all, i've updated the agenda for our Durban meeting based on our teleconference today. here's a link to the results. any additions/corrections welcome https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ISPCP+Durban+Meetin… mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Conference call
by Tony Holmes June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

Just a reminder that we have an ISPCP conference call scheduled for 14.00 UTC today which will focus on final arrangements for the Durban meeting, outreach activities and issues from the GNSO Council meeting. Tony

1 0