- ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: STI Report link
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 12, 2009

Dec. 12, 2009

Here are some easier links to the document: On page: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ the report can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf Wolf-Ulrich

1 1

RE: [ispcp] REMINDER / ISPCP Call / Friday 11 December at 1500 UTC
by Jaime Wagner Dec. 11, 2009

Dec. 11, 2009

All, I could not attend today's meeting because I had to take my father in law to the hospital. Jaime Wagner j(a)bwagner.com.br +55(51)8126-0916 skype: jaime_wagner From: Tony Holmes [mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com] Sent: sexta-feira, 11 de dezembro de 2009 06:30 To: jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br Subject: FW: [ispcp] REMINDER / ISPCP Call / Friday 11 December at 1500 UTC Jaime Just wanted to make sure you're aware. Regards Tony From: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gisella Gruber-White Sent: 10 December 2009 12:52 To: ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: [ispcp] REMINDER / ISPCP Call / Friday 11 December at 1500 UTC Importance: High Dear All, This is to remind you of the ISPCP call scheduled for Friday 11 December 2009 at 1500 UTC. Please find the dial-in details below. Thank you Kind regards Gisella ------------------------------------------------------------- Passcodes: Participant: 1385274 Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0489 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4854 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0956 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1956 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7725 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5235 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1378 1-800-009-646 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-80-004 0800-677-079 BELGIUM 32-2-401-7012 0800-4-9773 BRAZIL 0800-7610709 CHILE 1230-020-2471 CHINA* 86-400-810-4743 10800-712-1185 10800-120-1185 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156479 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-06 800-700-159 DENMARK 45-7014-0229 8088-5346 ESTONIA 800-011-1092 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-156 0-800-1-12318 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-156 0-800-1-12318 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-67 080-563-9648 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-67 080-563-9648 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-25-91 080-563-9648 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20599 0800-101-2179 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0630 00800-12-5998 HONG KONG 852-2286-5624 800-968-767 HUNGARY 06-800-15230 INDIA 000-800-852-1209 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3492 IRELAND 353-1-431-9674 1800-992-641 ISRAEL 1-80-9214131 ITALY 39-02-3600-0507 800-985-846 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4755 00531-12-1423 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5146 00531-12-1423 LATVIA 8000-2933 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1305 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8114 MEXICO 001-866-761-6529 NETHERLANDS 31-20-713-3466 0800-020-3473 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4633 0800-445-270 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-05 800-11825 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072096 PERU 0800-53765 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3702 POLAND 00-800-1210066 PORTUGAL 8008-12795 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9763011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9189 800-120-4141 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-07 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93386 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1044 00798-14800-6315 SPAIN 34-91-414-08-12 800-099-807 SWEDEN 46-8-506-92-118 0200-897-066 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-4209 0800-000-663 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7338 00801-137-557 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65077 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9007 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3207 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2107 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7098-0710 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1407 0800-279-9198 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3427 USA 1-210-795-0464 866-617-1530 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3717 Certain dialing restrictions can apply from specific countries. To ensure that your participants have the correct dialing procedures, please include this link in your invitation: https://e-meetings.verizonbusiness.com/audioconferencing/global_access.php ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

WG: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Special Trademark Issues Work Team Report to the GNSO Council
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 11, 2009

Dec. 11, 2009

FYI. I'll forward the motion to you as it is available. Please feel free to comment if you find time to read this comprehensive document until Dec 17. Because of the size of the document, you may download it from the GNSO Council's mailing list at: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08031.html Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Dezember 2009 19:25 An: Margie Milam; GNSO Council Cc: gnso sti Betreff: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Special Trademark Issues Work Team Report to the GNSO Council Wichtigkeit: Hoch Please forward Margie's messages, this one with the STI report attached and the one with the link to the document, to your respective groups for review and feedback immediately. As you all know, we have a short window on this but hopefully we will be able to take action on the report in our meeting six days from now. That will involve agreeing to an exception to the Council procedures regarding timing of motions and documents so also consider that and be prepared to communicate your group's position on that in addition to the report itself. A possible motion regarding action on the STI report will be drafted and distributed as soon as possible. I want to compliment the STI Group for what appears to be an extraordinary example of cooperative and constructive work on a controversial and time sensitive subject. Sincere thanks to everyone who contributed. As always, questions and comments on this list regarding the report are encouraged prior to our meeting on 17 December. And most importantly, please obtain input from your respective groups prior to the 17th so that we can take action in our meeting, remembering that the Board had asked us to respond to their request by 14 December. Then we can put this task to bed for now and hopefully better enjoy a happy holiday season. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-sti(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:20 PM To: GNSO Council Cc: gnso sti Subject: [gnso-sti] Special Trademark Issues Work Team Report to the GNSO Council Importance: High Dear All, On behalf of David Maher, the Chair of the STI Work Team, I am pleased to forward the Report from the Special Trademark Issues Work Team describing recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider at its meeting on 17 December 2009. Please note that there are several minority reports that are currently under development, as referenced in Annex 4, that will be sent separately to the GNSO Council as they are completed. Best Regards, Margie Milam _________________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________________

1 0

ISPCP call
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

Dear colleagues, for your info in preparation of the ISPCP call tomorrow I enclose the draft agenda of the Dec 17 council meeting. Secondly there's an intensive discussion going on funding a face to face meeting of the PDP working team which may be decided upon at the council meeting, too (see E-Mail from Jeff Neuman and the formal request attached). I personally support the request but would like to get feedback in order to fix an ISPCP position. Thirdly we should decide about travel support for the Nairobi meeting as we have to inform ICANN staff asap. Regards Wolf-Ulrich <<Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 17 December 2009.doc>> <<Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc>> Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Neuman, Jeff Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2009 00:17 An: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Liz Gasster; Marika Konings; Margie Milam; Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org Betreff: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting Chuck, Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face meeting in January 2010 setting for the rationale for needing such a working session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team. There was a consensus within the PDP WT for such a face to face meeting for the reasons stated within the attached document and should address some of the concerns that we have seen on the GNSO Council list over the past several weeks. We offer no opinion in this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the Council role in approving or supporting those face to face meetings, etc., but rather focus on our specific request. The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering Committee on December 5, 2009, and although no comments were actually received from any person on the PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP WT, there were some comments from the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group with respect to who was eligible for funding from ICANN. The discussions are archived on two lists (the PPSC list: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and the PDP-WT list (the PDP WT list - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/) It should be noted that the PPSC as a whole has been inactive since the formation of the Work Teams early this year. In fact some members of the PPSC listed at https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee…, may not be members of the Council or even active in the community. What follows is my brief summary of the issues raised to the best of my knowledge. If I have misstated any of the arguments, I apologize in advance, and would be happy to be corrected. Essentially, the PDP WT is recommending that 1 person be funded by ICANN staff from each constituency to attend the face to face. The NCSG has argued that there should be the same number of representatives from each of the Stakeholder groups, which would mean that if ICANN provides funding for the three CSG constituencies to attend, then it should fund three reps from the NCSG, RySG and RrSG to attend as well (as opposed to the recommended 1 from the NCSG, RySG and RrSG). The argument is that we have now reorganized into SGs and parity should be provided on an SG basis as opposed to constituency basis, and that the NCSG believes that this policy will exclude participation from the noncommercial users. It is important to note that neither the Registries nor the Registrars have raised those arguments nor do they agree with the NCSG view. ICANN staff has responded to the NCSG stating that participation in the PDP WT has never been exclusionary and that the Work Team has been open to anyone wanting to participate on-line, in conference calls, etc. However, "enhancing participation on the WT does not equate to getting funded to attend a particular F2F meeting. This WT has always been open for anyone to participate and any group to be represented. Every effort has been made to try to get input and participation from all Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, including by setting up surveys and requesting input on documents and discussions. It is troubling to see that only funded travel seems to drive a sudden need for 'adequate representation' while this interest level seems to have been missing when it came to participation in the WT's previous 20 calls and 3 surveys. This F2F meeting is actually about genuine participation and about bringing the discussions of those 20 calls and 3 surveys together into conclusions so the public, the PPSC and the GNSO have a concrete initial draft to consider." As Chair of the PDP WT, my personal view, for what it is worth, is more in line with ICANN staff's view. I believe it is not the quantity of persons funded to attend the face to face that should matter, but rather the quality. I need to do my job to make sure all view points are heard, discussed, and addressed whether it is one person making the argument or three. The fact is that we have not had three reps from the NCSG participate on a regular basis in the WT and to have three reps for the sake of having an equal number of representatives to me does not make sense. My view is that the most important reason for requesting this face to face meeting is to make progress on the work of the WT. To introduce new players into the process now, after a year's worth of calls, meetings, surveys, reports, etc. at a face to face meeting for the first time may not be lend itself to a productive meeting. On the other hand, if the ICANN staff and/or Council do decide that it is in the best interest of the Internet Community to allow all SGs (including Registries and Registrars by the way) to have 3 reps funded, then we will need to ensure that those participants are up to speed on the work, have read all of the materials, and that we do not recover old ground. Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to make myself available for the Council meeting to address any questions. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair 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(a)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.

1 0

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