- ispcp - lists.icann.org

FW: Re: [council] GNSO ATRT2 Applicants (minor change to improve clarity)
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

All, this in effect means that at least in the CPH there shall not be achieved the 60% threshold necessary to support the additional candidates. I'm sorry, Olivier, that this happens. I'm sure the Registrars would have supported if the CPH had at least one non-US candidate. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original Message----- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:19:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [council] GNSO ATRT2 Applicants (minor change to improve clarity) From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net> To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Dear Jonathan, thank you for making sure the process remains on track despite the difficult deadlines and our inablility to resolve this early on our last call. During the Amsterdam meeting the RrSG councilors have met and discussed the ballot, and we have elected to abstain on a vote on the two additional candidates. We believe the GNSO has endorsed four candidates for the ATRT that are highly capable for the role. The questions of geographic and gender diversity are fully available to the Chairs of the Board and GAC through the full slate of candidates from all parts of the community. Best regards, Volker Greimann All, The GNSO Council has now received endorsements from all four SGs. As a reminder, the GNSO process is as follows: The Council will consider the resulting list of up to four nominees at its next teleconference. If the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates from the applicant pool who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. In this case, the Council would hold a vote during its teleconference, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN. Please note: · The candidate list meets the GNSO agreed gender diversity requirements in that not all endorsed candidates are of the same gender. · However it does not meet the GNSO agreed geographic diversity requirements in that all endorsed candidates are from a single (North America) ICANN region. Therefore the slate needs to be added to with (up to two) additional SG supported candidates in order to get closer to meeting geographic diversity requirements. The two SG supported candidates that assist us in meeting this requirement are: Marie-Laure Lemineur F Latin America NCSG Olivier Mouron M Europe CSG Therefore we will ballot the Council on list (since a teleconference is now not practical ahead of the deadline) in order to see if either or both (of Marie-Laure Lemineur and Olivier Mouron) have the support of 60% of both houses of the Council. PLEASE CAN YOU KEEP AN ALERT VIEW ON THE COUNCIL LIST FOR THE BALLOT WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE NO LATER THAN 23H59 UTC TODAY (24TH JANUARY 2013). THE BALLOT WILL CLOSE 23H59 UTC ON 26TH JANUARY. Thank-you. Jonathan

1 0

FW: [council] Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

FYI Wolf-Ulrich -----Original Message----- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:25:09 +0100 Subject: [council] Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> HTTP://GNSO.ICANN.ORG/EN/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENT-25JAN13-EN.HTM CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS: POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (PDP) WORKING GROUP MEMBERS - INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY (IRTP) PART D IN BRIEF The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group that will address issues related to the transfer of domain names between registrars. After investigating and considering specific issues (detailed below), the Working Group is expected to recommend how to handle these issues, which could include proposals for changes to the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy [1] (a consensus policy adopted in 2004). WHAT THIS GROUP WILL DO The initial tasks of the group will be to consider the following six questions[1] and make relevant recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be pan>developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the pan>community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have pan>occurred; c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented aspan>part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on pan>their behalf); d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. HOW THIS GROUP WILL WORK ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the IRTP Part D WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Working Group is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [2]. HOW TO JOIN The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Participants in the Working Group that addressed IRTP Part C are especially encouraged to apply. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat [3] (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) This WG is already forming; please apply promptly. BACKGROUND The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy [4] (IRTP) is a consensus policy adopted in 2004 to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer domain names between registrars. An overall review of this policy identified areas that require clarification or improvement. At its meeting on 17 January 2013, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council passed a resolution chartering a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) to address the topic of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies (IRTP) Part D. Because the initial review identified a wide range of issues related to transferring domain names, the issues have been categorized into subsets. This Working Group will tackle the issues referred to as Part D. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ------------------------- [1] See the final Issue Report on the IRTP Part D [5] for further details on each of these issues. Links: ------ [1] http://archive.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm [2] ../../Library/Caches/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/Outlook%20Temp/gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf [3] mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20Part%20C%20Working%20Group [4] http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/policy-01jun12.htm [5] http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf

1 0

FW: Final Firm Agenda - Revised Times and New Session - GNSO-NCPH January 2013 LA Meeting Planning
by tony holmes Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

FYI Particularly those who will be in LA and those intending to join sessions by remote participation. Tony From: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org] Sent: 26 January 2013 00:25 To: William Drake; Marilyn Cade; Rafik Dammak; michaeladams(a)mayerbrown.com; Trachtenberg, Marc H.; Robin Gross; Alain Berranger; Klaus Stoll; Kristina Rosette; Metalitz, Steven; David Cake; Tony Holmes Cc: David Olive; Joseph de Jesus; Karen Lettner; Glen de Saint Géry; Nathalie Peregrine Subject: Final Firm Agenda - Revised Times and New Session - GNSO-NCPH January 2013 LA Meeting Planning Thank you all for the additional comments and suggestions for some of the session topics at the LA meeting. This message includes the last further revised agenda and attendee list for the meeting. In addition to a time shift for a few of the mid-day Wednesday sessions, this latest agenda (vFirm3) reflects changes in the order of the briefing sessions on the afternoon of Tuesday 29 January (the new gTLD briefing is moving from last to first) and the addition of a new late-afternoon session with ICANN Board members on Wednesday 30 January. The new Board session necessitated a shift of the potential wrap-up breakout meetings of Constituencies that day to earlier that afternoon. To Bill's point (previous message below), we plan to populate the meeting wiki page with a lot of this information this weekend - https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/InterSessional+-+January+2013 . We are currently revising the teleconference remote participation connections to reflect the agenda time changes. There is still time to set aside specific Constituency meeting slots in the allocated time blocks, so please advise Glen and Nathalie (emails above) as soon as possible if your community would like to plan on some individual meeting time, particularly if you are expecting to supplement your telephone and Adobe Connect arrangements with recordings and transcripts. To make potential use of the breakout rooms more efficient, each Constituency has been assigned a specific conference room space to use for breakout meetings in the appropriate time blocks during the meeting. The assignments are reflected in the attached agenda document. I am hopeful that you will appreciate the newly scheduled session with Board members. It turns out that a number of Board members will be arriving early for a Board Workshop taking place later in the week and Steve Crocker asked for the opportunity for an informal dialogue with meeting attendees. The agenda will be somewhat informal since only those Board members able to attend will be present. Some prospective topics that Steve has discussed include: * The future of Internet governance what is the appropriate role of ICANN? * What is the future of the GNSO in a world of new gTLDs? * What does it really mean to say that ICANN is operating in the Public Interest? * How will more attention on Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice impact ICANN its operations and constituent structures? * Going forward, what is the best way for the Board and the community to engage on broad industry issues. The purpose of a discussion including some of these topics would not be to reach any specific conclusions, but to give Board members in attendance an opportunity to develop a better understanding of your community views. Feel free to suggest some other topics for the one hour session. The session will be followed by an informal reception with Board members in the ICANN Café before you all head out for dinner on your own at 7pm that evening. Wishing you all safe and non-eventful travels to Los Angeles! Best, Rob On 1/25/13 3:10 AM, "William Drake" <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> wrote: Hi Rob One last point (in addition to the break-outs/remote participation one mentioned separately). We've circulated the RP info to our members, but we've been asked if it's a "secret meeting" since there's nothing posted about the agenda and participants. I assume the intention is to put these at https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/InterSessional+-+January+2013. If that could happen soon it would help us to clue in our respective members about what they'll encounter by dialing in. Thanks Bill

1 0

Re: Updated Agenda and Logistical Information-- GNSO-NCPH January 2013 LA Meeting Planning
by WUK Jan. 22, 2013

Jan. 22, 2013

Tony and all, at the ISPCP call yesterday we developed the following re the intercessional meeting in LA and the advance CSG call today. Tuesday morning agenda (CSG talk with Fadi, 1.5-2 hrs): - Outreach: ICANN's role and responsibility - WhoIS-project: overall targets and challenges - GNSO review: early SG engagement in developing the review criteria - Internet Governance after WCIT: Fadi's views on ICANN's role Tuesday afternoon: - stakeholder engagement: outreach shall be a main topic Mikey to contribute about ISPCP wiki Organizational arrangements: - Tuesday morning 1.5-2 hrs available for CSG / ISPCP internal meetings - Is there space and need for an NCPH meeting besides the main agenda to discuss common issues? - remote participation: all please indicate your name on the agenda attached where you would like to participate remotely and return to me! Glen shall organize the facilities. - Tuesday night reception: so far no ISPCP invites I'm scheduled to arrive LAX airport on Monday at 12:40 pm. So I could be available later in the afternoon for a prep drink prior to CSG dinner. What's other attendees' plan? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 19.01.2013 um 09:23 schrieb Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>: > Wolf-Ulrich > I’ve forwarded this message from Rob Hoggarth which contains all the latest information, including an updated agenda. > There are a number of key discussion points where we need to take a view including; > - remote participation requirements > - thoughts on the Tuesday morning agenda and topics to be covered (in advance of a CSG call being arranged for Tuesday evening UTC) > - the need to feedback on outreach (what will we offer) > - ISP invites for the reception on Tuesday > > I’m sorry I won’t be able to join the ISPCP call to discuss this, please keep me informed of the outcome of the ISPCP call next week. > Regards > Tony > > From: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org] > Sent: 18 January 2013 23:30 > To: 'Marilyn Cade'; Robin Gross; Rafik Dammak; michaeladams(a)mayerbrown.com; mtrachtenberg(a)winston.com; Alain Berranger; Klaus Stoll; Tony Holmes; William Drake; David Cake > Cc: David Olive; Joseph de Jesus; Karen Lettner; Glen de Saint Géry; Margie Milam; Metalitz, Steven; Kristina Rosette > Subject: Re: Updated Agenda and Logistical Information-- GNSO-NCPH January 2013 LA Meeting Planning > > > > Thank you all for your recent emails and input on final agenda modifications and meeting logistics. This message is designed to address all the various issues raised in the past week including (1) revisions to the agenda (attached), (2) the complete list of planned attendees (attached), (3) information about the Tuesday evening reception (with a soft copy of the reception invitation card attached), and (4) some potential “homework” to help Staff prepare for the meeting. I have tried to array the information generally in bullet point form so that all the useful information categories are easy to review. > > Revised Agenda and Meeting Room Arrangements: > > Driven by meeting logistics requiring additional time to change over the meeting rooms between certain sessions, the latest and now firm agenda (vFirm) attempts to balance the requests for more community time and the requests for more briefing time on identified issues. I am hopeful that we have achieved an appropriate balance. > > The first day (Tuesday) morning-to-early-afternoon time period now provides more flexibility for each SG to have a substantive meeting with the CEO and to set aside some individual meeting time for each SG or Constituency. The time block has been expanded by almost two hours to create more opportunities for individual community meetings. You should consider the time between 9:00 am to 2:00 pm as a block of time with three primary components – (1) Exclusive SG time with the CEO – 90 minutes; (2) Flexible SG time to work as an SG or in breakout Constituency meetings – 90 minutes; and (3) an additional 90 minutes (as a working lunch) within your SG, your Constituency or in bilateral/multilateral discussions with other community groups. > > That last 90-minute session option at lunchtime is a function of the need for the IT Team to help us re-set the Postel Meeting Room for the afternoon joint sessions. That time is necessary to move walls, re-arrange meeting tables and chairs, connect microphones, etc. > > With morning agenda revised, I was also able to build back in an additional 15 minutes per topic for the Tuesday afternoon briefings. As a result the briefing session will slide a little later into the late afternoon/evening and the evening reception start time has moved back 30 minutes. > > Glen de Saint Géry and I have been working to arrange remote participation connections for all the various session times and meeting rooms that are reflected in the agenda, so please advise us as soon as possible if you or your community would like to plan on some individual meeting time. We particularly need to know if you are expecting to make use of any remote participation tools during any of your community break out meetings. > > You’ll see when we are all together in the ICANN Office, that the available space is somewhat flexible but tight, as there are a number of other activities scheduled for the office that week. Just in case, we’ve arranged an extra meeting room at the DoubleTree Hotel that will be available for breakout meetings. The room will be able to accommodate 15 people. We are still negotiating the need (and cost) of phone and wi-fi facilities for the room. As you’ll see, the hotel is only a short 3-minute shuttle ride from the office and we will have the shuttle service available to us all day so that the meeting room should be quite convenient to access and use. > > Remote Participation Arrangements: > > Glen and the IT Team are creating new Adobe Connect Rooms and phone bridges as a result of this meeting. We’ll be providing those links and numbers to you next week so that you can make them available to any of your community members who plan to join any meeting sessions remotely. > > We’re planning to run each joint meeting session in a manner similar to the arrangements at an ICANN Public Meeting where remote participants will be able to raise their hands, type questions and comments in the AC chat room as the vehicle for sharing their views and questions. Breakout discussions will be managed by each community in the manner they typically conduct their meetings. > > Recording via the phone line links will stop and start between various sessions so that MP3 files will be accessible and manageable for future listeners. > > We’re building out a special meeting site wiki page - https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/InterSessional+-+January+2013 -that will host all the meeting recordings, transcripts and other documentation shared during the two days. > > Breakout Meeting Rooms: > > Breakout rooms will be available for use even during some of the joint briefing sessions. Remote participation for those sessions will be at the discretion of each community’s leadership consistent with their community’s standard meeting processes for phone bridges, and remote access. Our sense is that the existing community phone bridges and Adobe Connect Rooms (as previously issued by Glen) can be used for any of those individual meetings. Due to other ICANN activities in the office going on during our meeting, scheduling of those rooms will be tight, so please let Glen and me know if you will want to schedule some meeting time in any of the available rooms. > > Tuesday Evening Reception: > > The Tuesday evening reception start time has been shifted by 30 minutes. It is now scheduled from 7:30 to 9:30 pm in the Culver Club at the DoubleTree Hotel. We’ll have staff in the room at 7:00pm to greet any early arrivals. The Travel Team has created an invitation card for the meeting that you are free to use and circulate. A soft copy of the card is attached to this message. The card is intended to be general so you can supplement the invitation with your own cover note. > > The reception is open to all meeting attendees, local LA guests invited by the community leadership teams and available ICANN staff. Recall that one of the original aspects of this pilot project included an outreach element, so we hope you will all be able to invite local LA contacts and connections who might be interested in ICANN’s work. > > Where possible, please share with me by the end of next week how many people you have invited to the reception. It would be great to have names of any confirmed RSVPs ahead of time so that we can get badges/name tags prepared, but if you only have invitee numbers by that time it will be helpful. > > Based on a preliminary understanding of the pool of prospective local LA invitees, we are planning for an event of approximately 80 people, > > We had investigated the possibility of a second reception for the community on Wednesday evening but weren’t able to solidify that opportunity. So Wednesday evening has no reception of other scheduled event. > > Discussion Preparation: > > To help Staff prepare for a number of the sessions, please take the opportunity to provide a list of any specific questions, hot topics and priority discussion issues that you would like addressed during each session. Several Senior Staff have said they want to focus on what is of interest to you and tailor their remarks and preparation appropriately. I have listed each session for which we are seeking feedback below: > > CEO Roundtable Discussion with the CSG and the NCSG (Slot A) > Stakeholder Engagement Dialogue (Slot C) -- To answer Marc’s question about this session, it is largely intended to give community members the opportunity to share with senior ICANN Staff what outreach efforts they are making, how they are collaborating internally and to discuss how they can leverage their community efforts with Staff plans and resources. Advice and insights on ICANN outreach and community engagement are also welcomed. This is a potentially broad area for discussion. It is an opportunity for the community to meet the Staff responsible for these efforts, for Staff to hear generally how they can best help the community in both outreach and engagement and to share some of the ideas and proposals they have been developing to work with the community in an effective manner. I am hopeful there may also be opportunities to hear about plans and ideas for the upcoming Public Meeting in Beijing and to share some ideas about the evolving new “MyICANN” collaboration platform. > RAA Negotiation Briefing and Discussion (Slot D) > WHOIS Initiatives Briefing and Discussion (Slot E) > New gTLDs (Slot F) > Internet Governance Landscape (Slot H) > Community Needs (Slot I) > GNSO Toolkit Phase 2 (Slot J) For background or inspiration on this topic, I have attached a copy of the FY14 Draft Checklist or the GNSO Toolkit. I hope that document will spur additional questions for me and Glen. > FY14 Budget Discussion (Slot L) > > If you choose to submit any suggestions, please simply list the session title or slot number and any questions, topics or issues you would like to discuss during each particular session. I’ll collate the list and send messages to each scheduled staff speaker by next Wednesday (23 January) COB. I have also expressed to all presenters the request that they share any presentation materials as far in advance of their meeting sessions as possible. > > Other Training Opportunities: > > A couple of you have asked about community training opportunities on the ICANN Confluence Wiki Tool during the meeting. I have discussed this request with our IT Team. They do not currently have a standard training package in place at this time beyond manuals currently posted on the community wiki page. I have discussed developing such a package with them and I think we will be in a position to offer some training opportunities via webinar beginning later next month, but not during the two days we are all in Los Angeles. I would be happy to follow-up with any of you who are interested in scheduling some wiki training opportunities between now and the Beijing Public Meeting. > > > You have all been very helpful and thoughtful in your various comments, questions and observations. All those “intercessions” have really helped to influence our planning efforts and I expect they will help assure a successful meeting “implementation” as well. Thank you! > > Best, > > Rob > > > <Agenda - NCPH Inter-Sessional (vFirm- Jan17).docx><Attendees (Scheduled) for Jan 2013 GNSO NCPH LA Mtg (vFirm).xls><Intersessional Reception Invite.png><GNSO Toolkit Services Checklist-Jan 2013 (v3).doc>

4 3

Fwd: [council] Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) - GNSO Endorsement of Candidates
by WUK Jan. 21, 2013

Jan. 21, 2013

FYI Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > Von: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> > Betreff: [council] Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) - GNSO Endorsement of Candidates > Datum: 21. Januar 2013 16:45:21 MEZ > An: <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, <krosette(a)cov.com>, "tony holmes" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, "William Drake" <william.drake(a)uzh.ch>, <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com>, <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, "'KEITH DRAZEK'" <kdrazek(a)Verisign.com>, "Matt Serlin" <matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com> > Kopie: <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <gnso-secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Dear All, > > The GNSO Council met today in order to consider the list of GNSO SG endorsed applicants to the ATRT. > > In fact, prior to the meeting, we had only formally received the endorsement of the Registrars SG in writing and we received the Registries SG endorsement during the course of the meeting. > > Given that, in our original communication, we indicated that the 24th January would be the deadline, we have now set a final deadline for SG endorsements of 23h59 UTC on 24 January. > > Please can you ensure that your SG provides an endorsed candidate and , if appropriate, the SG support of up to 2 additional candidates whom you wish to be considered for GNSO endorsement. > The additional candidates will only be considered as part of the GNSO agreed diversity criteria (should they be required) and will need the support of 60% of both houses in order to be added to the slate of GNSO endorsed candidates. > > Please send your endorsements to gnso-secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org as soon as possible. > > Please note that if your SG does not endorse a candidate, the GNSO may be endorsing fewer than four nominees. > > Thank-you for your assistance with this. > > Best wishes, > > > > Jonathan Robinson > > ---------------- > > Jonathan Robinson > Chair > ICANN GNSO Council > > jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com > skype: jonathan.m.r > > > > > From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] > Sent: 16 January 2013 11:12 > To: 'marilynscade(a)hotmail.com' (marilynscade(a)hotmail.com) krosette(a)cov.com; tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) William Drake (william.drake(a)uzh.ch) alain.berranger@gmail.com;robin@ipjustice.org; 'KEITH DRAZEK (kdrazek(a)Verisign.com)'; Matt Serlin (matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com) > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Glen de Saint Géry (gnso-secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) > Subject: RE: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) > > Dear All, > > Following up on my letter of 7th January 2013. The Call for Applicants is now closed and therefore we now have the complete list of applicants arising from within the GNSO. > GNSO Council Vice Chair Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has kindly prepared a summary of the GNSO applicants (attached). > > According to the previously agreed procedure (attached), the Council now needs to consider the resulting list of up to four nominees (endorsed by the four stakeholder groups). The deadline for declaration of SO/AC endorsement is tight (28 January 2013) and the next GNSO Council teleconference is scheduled for tomorrow, 17th January 2013. Therefore, we have scheduled an additional teleconference on 21 January 2013 in order to specifically deal with this issue, if we have not been able to deal with it on 17 January 2013. > > Accordingly, if your stakeholder group is intending to endorse a candidate from the pool, please can you complete the process (by sending you endorsements to the GNSO secretariat) as soon as possible (and in any event before the 21 January 2013) so that the Council can complete the Process for GNSO Endorsement. > > Please note that if your SG does not endorse a candidate, the GNSO may be endorsing fewer than four nominees. > > Thank-you for your assistance with this. > > Best wishes, > > > > Jonathan Robinson > > > Jonathan Robinson > Chair > ICANN GNSO Council > > jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com > skype: jonathan.m.r > > > > > > > > > > From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] > Sent: 07 January 2013 14:15 > To: 'marilynscade(a)hotmail.com' (marilynscade(a)hotmail.com) krosette(a)cov.com; tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) William Drake (william.drake(a)uzh.ch) alain.berranger@gmail.com;robin@ipjustice.org; 'KEITH DRAZEK (kdrazek(a)Verisign.com)'; Matt Serlin (matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com) > Subject: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) > > Dear All, > > Please see the attached letter and supporting document regarding GNSO participation in the Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) for your consideration. > > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan > > > > > Jonathan Robinson > Chair > ICANN GNSO Council > > jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com > skype: jonathan.m.r > >

1 0

Meeting Invitation / ISPCP call
by Gisella Gruber Jan. 20, 2013

Jan. 20, 2013

Dear All, The next ISPCP call is scheduled on Monday 21 January 2013 at 1300 UTC. To check your local time: http://tinyurl.com/bhppl4c Please find the dial-in details below: Participant Passcode: Participant: 3429 # Dial-in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ <http://www.adigo.com/icann/> Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella ----------------- Gisella Gruber ICANN Policy Staff in support of GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: gisella.gruber(a)icann.org Tel: +44 7545 334 360 Skype ID: gisella.gw One World, One Internet

1 0

RE: Reminder: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
by Novoa, Osvaldo Jan. 17, 2013

Jan. 17, 2013

Dear Glen, Sorry for our delay in submiting our response but I am enclosing it now. I hope we are still in time though the deadline was two days ago. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa ________________________________ De: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Enviado el: Miércoles, 16 de Enero de 2013 13:25 Para: tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) CC: WUK; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs(a)icann.org; Berry Cobb Mail; Brian Peck Asunto: Reminder: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Reminder ! The GNSO Council is looking to expedite this PDP to accommodate requests from the ICANN Board and GAC. As part of its efforts to obtain input from the broader ICANN Community, at an early stage of its deliberations, the IGO-INGO Protections Working Group tasked with addressing this issue is looking for any input or information that may help inform its deliberations. You are strongly encouraged to provide any input your respective communities may have by providing it to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) by 15 January 2013. Please inform us whether you will be sending a statement and when it can be expected. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] De la part de Glen de Saint Géry Envoyé : vendredi 7 décembre 2012 21:37 À : tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) Cc : KnobenW(a)telekom.de; Novoa, Osvaldo; gnso-secs(a)icann.org; Brian Peck; Berry Cobb Mail Objet : [gnso-secs] Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Dear Tony, The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the ISPCP's input through the attached Input Template also in text below: Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter referred to as "identifiers", of intergovernmental organizations (IGO's) and international non-governmental organizations (INGO's) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions. Part of the Working Group's effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the Working Group's deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below. For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: * http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ * http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm Process - Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group - Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group / Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below - Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group / Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked to address: As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is a need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final Issue Report: * Quantifying the Entities whose names may be Considered for Special Protection * Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned; * Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned; * Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC and IOC designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations. Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need for special protections at the top and second levels in all existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers, the PDP WG is expected to: * Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO organizations at the first and second levels. * Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and make recommendations on the implementation of such protection. * Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for these identifiers. Questions to Consider: 1. What kinds of entities should be considered for Special Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)? Group View: 2. What facts or law are you aware of which might form an objective basis for Special Protections under International Treaties/Domestic Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the DNS? Group View: 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? Group View: 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? Group View: 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? Group View: 6. In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of new gTLDs? Group View: 7. Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have? Group View: 8. Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and INGOs)? Group View: For further background information on the WG's activities to date, please see: * Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm) * Protection of International Organization Names Final Issue Report, for insight into the current practices and issues experienced (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…) * The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those efforts were combined with this PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ 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.

2 1

Fwd: [council] Proposed "strawman" solution for strengthening trademark protections in the new gTLD program
by WUK Jan. 17, 2013

Jan. 17, 2013

FYI Wolf-Ulrich Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > Von: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> > Betreff: [council] Proposed "strawman" solution for strengthening trademark protections in the new gTLD program > Datum: 17. Januar 2013 11:27:58 MEZ > An: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > All, > > Kevin Murphy / Domainincite has summarised the issues and public comment on the “strawman” solution in a way which you might find useful. > > The link to his article is here: > > http://domainincite.com/11619-new-gtld-strawman-splits-community > > > Jonathan

1 0

RE: E-mail list
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 16, 2013

Jan. 16, 2013

Dear Wolf-Ulrich, my former e-mail account seems to be still on the ispcp list. Could you please migrate it into wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de? <<Glen: This has been done. The same would apply for a CSG list if feasible. <<Glen: Which list are you referring to? Please let me know. <<Thanks so much for reminding me about the ISPCPC list! Kind regards Glen

1 0

Fwd: [council] FW: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2)
by Novoa, Osvaldo Jan. 8, 2013

Jan. 8, 2013

All, FYI Best regards, Osvaldo Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Para: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>> Asunto: [council] FW: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) All, Note sent to SG leadership as previously agreed. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 07 January 2013 14:15 To: 'marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>' (marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>); krosette(a)cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>; tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>); William Drake (william.drake(a)uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>); alain.berranger(a)gmail.com<mailto:alain.berranger@gmail.com>; robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>; 'KEITH DRAZEK (kdrazek(a)Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@Verisign.com>)'; Matt Serlin (matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com<mailto:matt.serlin@markmonitor.com>) Subject: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) Dear All, Please see the attached letter and supporting document regarding GNSO participation in the Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) for your consideration. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> skype: jonathan.m.r ________________________________ 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.

1 0