- ispcp - lists.icann.org

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

RE: ISPCP Charter
by Tony Holmes Nov. 6, 2009

Nov. 6, 2009

With attachments - apologies From: Tony Holmes [mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com] Sent: 27 October 2009 02:03 To: ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: ISPCP Charter All Attached are the latest versions of the ISPCP Charter showing some suggested revisions the Staff believes would bring the present Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency charter into conformance with the Bylaws and those recent Board decisions. This will be discussed during today's ISPCP meeting. Regards Tony

2 1

WG: [council] OSC CSG Toolkit of Services Recommendations
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Nov. 5, 2009

Nov. 5, 2009

Dear Colleagues, I suggest this as a topic for the ISPCP call prior to the next council meeting on Nov 23. This toolkit can be very supportive to the constituency and should be commented. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. November 2009 17:10 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] OSC CSG Toolkit of Services Recommendations Please find attached the first set of recommendations for GNSO improvements from the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) related to Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations. Please forward these recommendations to your respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting. In the meantime, questions and comments are encouraged on this list and a brief opportunity will be provided for discussion of this in our meeting on 23 Nov. I encourage all groups (SGs, constituencies and ACs to consult with your representative(s) on the OSC; the OSC members are provided here: Primary Team Members * Olga Cavalli - Alternate Chair (NomCom Appointee) * Chuck Gomes - Chair (GNSO Council Vice-Chair) * Robin Gross (Non Commercial Users Constituency) * Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (Internet Service Providers Constituency) * Vanda Scartezini (ALAC) * Philip Sheppard (Business Constituency) * Ken Stubbs (Registries Constituency) * Steve Metalitz (Intellectual Property Constituency) * Stéphane Van Gelder (Registrar Constituency) * Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Policy Staff) * Julie Hedland (ICANN Policy Staff) * Glen De Saint Géry (GNSO Secretariat) Alternate Team Members * Ron Andruff (Business Constituency) * Mason Cole (Registrar Constituency) * Tony Holmes (Internet Service Providers Constituency) * David Maher (Registries Constituency) Thanks, Chuck (OSC Chair)

1 0

RE: IRT statement
by Tony Holmes Oct. 30, 2009

Oct. 30, 2009

Maggie (and drafting team) Many thanks for producing this and meeting the time constraints. I'm fine with the content, its brief and covers what's required as the initial ISPCP input. Tony From: Mansourkia, Magnolia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com] Sent: 28 October 2009 07:27 To: ispcp(a)icann.org; Tony Holmes Subject: IRT statement Importance: High Hi all. These are the proposed bullet points that Tony will use as the basis of our constituency statement for the IRT working group. Please review and provide your comments to the list. Obviously, we did not address every question in the letter, only those that we had a vested interest in. * There is no need for the clearinghouse to be separate and independent from ICANN. ICANN should oversee and have complete responsibility for the clearinghouse. * URS must be mandatory. Staff's belief that there is a strong incentive to do this anyway does not address the impact of a business model formed as a haven for bad actors. * The clearinghouse is an existing and proven model that preserves rights while expediting the registrants ability to register domains that do not infringe on the rights of others. It is a model that should extend to existing registries, but consideration should be given to the timing. Please copy the list on your response, if any. Tony will need our responses by end of day, Thursday, October 29th. Thanks, M.

3 4

GNSO
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Colleagues, Find attached an interesting study staff did with regards to participation in working teams. It's not intended to blame one or the other constituency rather then to initiate a discussion how to improve work team attendance. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich <<GNSO Participation Data Analysis-Findings for Council.pdf>>

2 1

Next meetings
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Colleagues, Nov 23 has been settled for the next council meeting. In order to have exchange information and views/ideas I'd like to suggest holding a constituency conference call the week before the council meeting. Tony, I'd appreciate if you take this into consideration by organizing this call with a doodle request. Have a safe trip home from Seoul Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

WG: [council] Detailed GNSO Council Seoul Follow-up Meeting 29 October 2009
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

FYI Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2009 03:41 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Detailed GNSO Council Seoul Follow-up Meeting 29 October 2009 Apologies, this is the detailed agenda: Agenda - GNSO Council Seoul Follow-up Meeting 29 October 2009 1. Agenda approval 2. Key action items under the just approved Council Operating Procedures 3. Council meeting schedule for next 12-months (due in 30 days) a. Discussion of key factors b. Decisions i. Day of meetings? ii. Frequency of meetings? iii. Time of meetings? c. Next meeting i. Thursday, 12 Nov ii. Thursday, 19 Nov - Day after IGF ends in Egypt iii. Thursday, 26 Nov - Major holiday in the USA iv. Time? d. Process for developing 12-month calendar 4. Staff item (Liz Gasster) 5. Work prioritization process initiation a. Workload information prepared by Staff b. Methodology i. Tools ii. Small drafting team? 6. Review & discussion of Seoul GNSO meetings a. Pros & cons b. Lessons learned 7. ICANN Strategic Plan (Theresa Swinehart) 8. Observer participation in weekend meetings - next steps? 9. AOB Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: BC Business Stream Cocktail
by Tony Holmes Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

For those in Seoul please see the following invitation. Tony -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: 27 October 2009 23:32 To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: BC Business Stream Cocktail BC members, colleagues from the CSG, new Council appointees are reminded they are all welcome to attend the cocktail tonight from 18.00 - 19.00 in Athenee Lounge, level 3, Lotte Hotel, Seoul. Philip

1 0