<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting - San Francisco Silicon Valley 16 March 2011
...Or the likely protests reportedly planned by the Adult film industry.
-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:41:03
To: Andrei Kolesnikov<andrei@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
"'Stéphane_Van_Gelder'"<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; 'Council
GNSO'<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Glen_de_Saint_Géry'"<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting -
San Francisco Silicon Valley 16 March 2011
I just hope for Clinton's sake the press coverage of this meeting doesn't dwell
much on .xxx. Wonder if that possibility was mentioned in the outreach to him….
Bill
On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:25 AM, Andrei Kolesnikov wrote:
> Well, I believe that ICANN needs good marketing and Mr. Clinton is a perfect
> scenario. I don't see why Mr. Clinton ruins the bottom-up or any other
> approach by his appearance on the stage.
> The question is in execution. The top gov officials always ruin the logistics
> of any event. Lets see how ICANN manages it.
>
> --andrei
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 7:28 PM
> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Cc: Council GNSO; Glen_de_Saint_Géry
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting -
> San Francisco Silicon Valley 16 March 2011
>
> It is right to pursue this, Stephane. President Clinton's presence and the
> casual shifting of the Council meeting suggest an acceleration by ICANN away
> from its originating commitments to the community to a top-down approach.
>
> Berard
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
> Meeting - San Francisco Silicon Valley 16 March 2011
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;
> Date: Sat, March 05, 2011 2:47 am
> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Councillors,
>
> Following on from this proposed agenda, I wanted to bring to your attention a
> situation which Glen, Mary, Jeff and I have been faced with over the past few
> days.
>
> As you may know, Bill Clinton is speaking in the main ballroom early evening
> on the same Wednesday we are due to have our Open Council meeting.
>
> The main ballroom, which was assigned to our Council meeting (as usual for
> ICANN meetings) will therefore have to be closed and security searched at 3pm.
>
> As soon as I learned of this, I asked if it was possible to move our meeting
> to the Wed morning in the main ballroom. I was told it was not and we would
> be put in a smaller room for our Open Council meeting.
>
> My reaction to this is that the GNSO is an important part of ICANN and that
> our Open meeting is an important part of an ICANN meeting. No disrespect to
> President Clinton, which we are all delighted and eager to listen to, but I
> am loath to see our Council meeting moved to a smaller room to accommodate
> requirements that seem somewhat removed from the reason we are all in SF,
> which is to carry out ICANN business.
>
> I put this to Mary and Jeff, who both agree. Your Council Leaders have
> therefore asked our support staff to take this back to the meeting planning
> staff so that an acceptable solution can be found.
>
> Therefore, please accept that the times and venue of the proposed agenda
> shown below are subject to change. We are pushing this and will report back
> as soon as we have something new on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> Le 5 mars 2011 à 00:41, Glen de Saint Géry a écrit :
>
>
> Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting - San Francisco Silicon
> Valley
>
> 16 March 2011,
>
> Reference to ICANN Schedule
> http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22187
>
>
> Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so
> interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest
> updates on the GNSO Council Workspace at:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_16_march_2011#
>
>
> As can be seen below, in addition to the Open Microphone at the end of the
> agenda, as possible throughout the meeting time will be allowed for audience
> participation. Please be aware that audience opportunities to comment will
> depend on available time.
> Meeting Times
>
> Coordinated Universal Time:20:30 UTC - see below for local times
> (13:30 San Francisco, 16:30 Washington DC, 20:30 London, 21:30 Brussels
> 17 March 2011
> 01:30 Karachi, 05:30 Tokyo, 07:30 Melbourne
>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council.
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf
>
> For convenience:
> An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in
> Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting
> procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.
> (Insert links to meeting audio-cast and Adobe connect as applicable.)
>
> 1. Administrative Matters (10 minutes)
> a. Roll call of Council members, noting alternates and proxies (Glen)
> b. Polling for Disclosures of Interest
> i. Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll
> Councilors regarding “any direct or indirect interests that may affect a
> Relevant Party’s judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or
> discussion” in this meeting.
>
> ii. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: “Disclosure of
> Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written
> statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may
> be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible
> benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect,
> or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue.”
>
> iii. The main issues for this meeting are:
> • GNSO Project Decision Making
> • New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
> • Joint New gTLD Applicant Support Recommendations
> • Recommendations re. Registration Abuse Policies
> • Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group Charter
> • Whois & Internationalized Registration Data
> • GNSO Improvements
> b. Update any statements of interest
> c. Review/amend agenda
> d. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO
> Operating Procedures:
> .24 February 2011 meeting minutes: Scheduled for approval on 11 March 2010
>
> Item 2: Pending Projects – GNSO Toolkit of services (25 minutes)
>
> Update on this work. The “toolkit” refers to a list of basic services
> approved by the GNSO Council 17 Dec 2009 that will be made available to
> eligible GNSO organizations. Implementation proposals have been discussed and
> feedback requested by Feb 15, 2011.
> Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf.
>
> 2. 1 Update on work, indication of proposed next steps – Rob Hoggarth, ICANN
> Staff
>
> 2. 2 Discussion
> Council
> Audience
>
> 2. 3 Next steps
>
> Item 3: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) (25 minutes)
>
> 3.1 Updating OSC Recommendation for Proxies in the GNSO Operating Procedures.
> Group of volunteers to work on proposed alternative text to existing OSC
> recommendations <insert link> before submitting text to OSC.
>
> • Bill Drake has volunteered to lead
> • Update and proposed text
> • Next steps
> Item 4: PPSC Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines (25minutes)
>
> • Refer to: resolution 13 Jan meeting
> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201101
> • See public comments received
> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/) as well as summary &
> analysis provided by staff
> • Refer to Council discussion during Feb 24 meeting. PPSC Chair has relayed
> comments received on the report back to the PPSC with a goal of finalizing
> the report so the Council can vote to approve it in San Francisco.
> 4.1 Refer to motion
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_march_motions
>
> 4.2 Discussion
> Council
> Audience
> 4.3 Vote
>
> Item 5: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and
> Innovation (30 minutes)
> Refer to Board resolution:
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6
> Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. A proposed response has been
> drafted to send to the Board.
>
> 5.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair and analysis of proposed response.
>
> 5. 2 Discussion
> Council
> Audience
>
> 5. 3 Next steps? Is there consensus on sending the response to the Board as
> proposed and drafted?
>
> Item 6: Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG) (25
> minutes)
>
> At their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting ALAC, the ccNSO, the
> GNSO, the GAC and the NRO acknowledged the need for a better understanding of
> the security and stability of the global DNS. To this end these SOs and ACs
> agreed to establish a joint DNS Security and Stability Working Group
> (DSSA-WG).
>
> Refer to DSSA-WG draft charter
> http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf
>
> ccNSO has agreed to a maximum of 12 volunteers from the GNSO.
>
> Current GNSO volunteers:
> • Zahid Jamil- (CBUC)
> • Scott McCormick - (CBUC)
> • Mikey O'Connor - (CBUC)
> • Adam Palmer- (CBUC Symantec)
> • George Asare-Sakyi - (NCSG)
> • Rafik Dammak - (NCSG)
> • Matt Serlin - (MarkMonitor, RrSG)
> • Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG)
> • Greg Aaron- (Afilias, RySG)
> • Keith Drazek- (Verisign, RySG)
> • Don Blumenthal - (PIR, RySG)
> • Mike Rodenbaugh - (IPC)
> • Chris Wright - (RrSG)
> • Forest
>
> 6.1 Finalise list of volunteers
>
> 6.2 Selection of GNSO co-chair for the WG.
>
> Item 7: Study Group on Use of Names of Countries and Territories (15 minutes)
>
> The call for volunteers for this group has now closed. The ccNSO has agreed
> to a maximum of 8 volunteers from the GNSO.
>
> Current GNSO volunteers:
>
> Carlos Aguirre - GNSO Nominationg Committee Appointee
> George Asare-Sakyi - NCSG
> Ilya Bazlyankov - RrSG
> Olga Cavalli - GNSO Nominationg Committee Appointee
> Ching Chiao - RySG - Liaison for GNSO Council
> Avri Doria - NCSG
> Jothan Frakes -
> Volker Greimann - RrSG
> Jean Guillon -
> Tony Harris- ISPCP
> Garth Miller -
> Krista Papac - RrSG
> Alexei Sozonov - RrSG
> 7.1 Update from Liz Gasster
>
> 7.2 Discussion
> Council
> Audience
>
> 7.3 Select 8 volunteers to be put forward to ccNSO.
> Item 8: Follow-up on RAP recommendations (30 minutes)
>
> See next step suggestions from previous meetings:
> • Provide an outline of topics to be addressed in the UDRP Issues paper and
> the discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help
> registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names
> in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report.
> • Seek input or comments from the Council during the GNSO weekend working
> sessions.
>
> 8.1 Update from Liz Gasster
>
> 8.2 Discussion
> Council
> Audience
>
> 8.3 Next steps
> Item 9: WHOIS Service Requirements Report - Update Liz Gasster (25 minutes)
> Discussion
> Council
> Audience
> Item 10. Other Business (5 minutes)
>
> Item 11. Open Microphone (30 minutes)
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section
> 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO
> Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or
> other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting
> thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25%
> vote of each House or majority of one House;
> 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described
> in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or
> more than 66% of one House;
> 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than
> 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”);
> 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
> affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one
> GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups
> supports the Recommendation;
> 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and
> 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a
> two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the
> GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with
> respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision.
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4)
> Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following
> items may vote by absentee ballot:
> 1. Initiate a policy development process;
> 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board;
> 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws;
> 4. Fill a position open for election.
> The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and
> authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-
> mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72
> hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except
> that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the
> Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There
> must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:30
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 13:30
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:30
> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 17:30
> Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 17:30
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:30
> Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:30
> Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:30
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5+0DST 01:30 next day
> Hong Kong, China (HKT) UTC+8+0DST 04:30 next day
> Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 05:30 next day
> Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 07:30 next day
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time
> (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|