I will not be able to make this call either. On the table for discussion and vote are two motions on WHOIS studies: one to defer all studies until all of them are prepared (the last currently have their RFPs under development); the second to begin the WHOIS misuse study. I initially opposed the misuse study as unscientific in its design, but I believe that we are close to amendments that will make this study more likely to generate useful results about whether and how data supplied for WHOIS is misused. I would be interested to hear the group's thoughts whether we should support study 1 with amendments or support deferral of all studies. Thanks, --Wendy On 08/03/2010 01:03 AM, Mary Wong wrote: > I apologize that I won't be able to participate on this call, though I > will be on the Council call the following day and so will greatly > appreciate any updates and comments from NCSG members that might assist > the Councillors in relation to the various action items and motions for > voting that will be discussed. > > I'd also encourage interested members to listen in on the live > audiocast of the Council meeting. As Bill and others have said > previously, this was the result of a motion made by NCSG Councillors in > Brussels, to increase transparency and facilitate better SG > participation and decision-making. While some Council meetings can be, > shall we say, fairly dry or overly procedurally-focused, there are > numerous substantive issues that do come up - e.g. VI, the various > Review Teams, WHOIS etc. -and it will be good to be able to not only > demonstrate NCSG interest but, perhaps more significantly, help make > bottom-up consensus a stronger reality. > > Finally, since I won't be on the NCSG call tomorrow, I thought I'd > report here that the RAP Implementation team has been established (I'm > the sole NCSG rep on it, surrounded by numerous commercial and IP > folks). Although we were due to make our first report to the Council > this Thursday, nothing much has happened (not surprising, since the > group was formed only about a week ago). I expect there'll be more > action after the Council meeting, during which the RAP-WG's Final Report > will be further discussed. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Franklin Pierce Law Center > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: [log in to unmask] > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network > (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > >>>> > > > From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > To:NCSG Members List <[log in to unmask]> > CC:NCSG-Policy <[log in to unmask]> > Date: 8/1/2010 10:57 PM > Subject: [ncsg-policy] NCSG Open Policy Meeting - 4 August 1300 UTC > Hi, > > I will send out an updated agenda before the meeting. > > So far I see: > > - Issues from the Council Agenda below > - Report on any WG Status - let me know if the group you are in is > worth talking about > - Update on the Charter and the Board > - Candidates for Review teams. We spoke to the candidates for Whois at > the last meeting. If the candidates for the Stability and Security are > on the call we speak with them. > - Other policy issues? > - other? > > Remember the Council meeting can not be listened to in audiocast - > Thursday 5 August at 1500 UTC > > GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org/gnso/ > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]> > Date: 30 July 2010 19:30:32 EDT > To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [liaison6c] Updated Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 5 August > 2010. > > Please note the link to the : > GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org/gnso/ > Please distribute this link and the agenda to all your stakeholder > group/constituency members > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-05aug10-en.htm > > Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 5 August 2010. > > This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating > Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09oct09-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. > Meeting Time 15:00 UTC > > See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: > 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT & Quito; 11:00 EDT; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 > Brazil; 17:00 CEST; 19:00 Moscow; 20:00 Pakistan; 23:00 Hong Kong; 00:00 > Tokyo, 01:00 Melbourne (next day) > Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > call is needed. > Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room > http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ > Please enter as a 'guest'. > > > GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org/gnso/ > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > 1.1 Roll call of Council members > 1.2 Update any statements of interest > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per > the GNSO Operating Procedures: > • 15 July Meeting – Scheduled for approval on 28 July 2010 > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09389.html > > Item 2: OSC GNSO Improvement Recommendations (15 minutes) > > 2.1 Refer to motion: > > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions > > 2.2 Read the motion (Olga Cavalli) > 2.3 Discussion > 2.4 Vote > (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this vote.) > 2.5 Action Items (if motion passes): > > • Cheat sheet for new voting procedures (Ken Bour) > • Distribution of Constituency & Stakeholder Group Operating Procedures > (Glen de Saint Géry) > • Staff will distribute a package of materials for SGs and > Constituencies regarding charters (Rob Hoggarth) > > Item 3: Whois Studies (20 minutes) > 3.1 Refer to: > • Whois Studies Report: > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf > > • RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm > • Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: > http://gnso.icann.org/whois/whois-studies-chart-30jul10-en.pdf > • Brief overview of the study choices presented by Lisa Phifer on 15 > July: > http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-whois-report-23jun10-en.pdf > 3.2 Motion to delay decision on Whois studies > • Refer to motion: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions > • Discussion > • Vote > (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this.) > 3.3 Motion to proceed with Study # 1 (if needed) > • Refer to motion: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions > • Discussion > • Vote > (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this.) > 3.4 Continuing discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies > 3.5 Next steps? > Item 4: September meeting date September 16 (scheduled date) vs. > September 8? (10 Minutes) > • Refer to Doodle Poll results: > o 8 September 11:00UTC and 15:00UTC > http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq > o 16 September 11:00UTC > http://www.doodle.com/zvvzwfkd9xdp4wge > • Discussion > • Adobe Connect Poll (Kristina Nordstrom) > > Item 5: Prioritization of GNSO work (20 Minutes) > 5.1 Refer to posted project ratings: > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-ratings-23jun10-en.pdf > > 5.2 Key points made in the 15 July Council meeting (from meeting > minutes): > • “. . . not a useful exercise, not much was learnt, should not proceed > further with the prioritization exercise.” > • “. . . spending more time on the exercise will not accomplish useful > results.” > • “It was a difficult exercise, policy matters were not prioritized and > the core issue, management of the workload, still has not been > resolved.” > • “The exercise was intended as a first step and not intended to solve > the workload management; other steps are needed. The exercise > contributed an important degree of common awareness and dissent to the > group.” > • “The prioritization process could be improved with further input from > the Councilors and stakeholder groups.” > • “The exercise is important and informative from a staff perspective > and the Council needs to look at a two-step process going forward: step > one - form a small team to improve the process used to date drawing on > input received; step two - develop a process to manage the workload with > input from staff of the resources being used to support each of the > working groups, which will reflect both staff and community efforts.” > • “Support was expressed for continuing the prioritization work, but > linking it to the overall ICANN Staff and Community workload and to the > Budget process.” > • “The question of available resources should be looked at in context. > The Vertical Integration working group as an example of one that would > not normally have commenced with all the work before Council, yet it did > and the community resources were available.” > • “Some believe that work should be prioritized but the methodology > chosen is not the most appropriate or efficient.” > 5.3 Next Steps > • Staff Utilization Analysis targeted for 26 August meeting (Liz > Gasster) > • Adobe Connect Poll Council regarding possible next steps (Kristina > Nordstrom): > o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization > o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload > in the near term > o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new > process > o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the > process > o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4) > • Discussion? > • Action Items > Item 6: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (10 > minutes) > 6.1 Refer to: > • GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ > • GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm > • GNSO Whois RT site: > http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm > 6.2 Key dates in the endorsement process: > • 29 July – End of application period > • 19 August – Due date for SG input (SG primary endorsements + > additional candidates supported for diversity purposes) > • 26 August – Council meeting > • 8 or 16 September – Council meeting (see agenda item 11.2 below) > • 12 September – GNSO endorsement slate due to Selectors > 6.3 Brief summary of candidates by SG for the SSR & Whois RTs (Glen de > Saint Géry) > 6.4 Discussion > > Item 7: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (10 Minutes) > 7.1 Progress report (Stéphane Van Gelder) > 7.2 Timeline > • End of public comment period for Initial Report: 13 August > • Target date for summary & analysis of public comments: 16 August > • Target date for submission of revised Initial Report to Council: 18 > August > • Deadline for submission of Initial Report to the Board for their > retreat: 13 September > 7.3 Discussion > > Item 8: Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report (5 > Minutes) > > 8.1 Refer to: > • Final Report: > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf > • Summary of Recommendations > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-final-report-conclusion-recommendations-13jul10-en.pdf > 8.2 Volunteers to develop action plan for Council consideration: > • Greg Aaron, chair of the RAP WG > • Chuck Gomes, Council Chair > • Mikey O'Connor CBUC-RAP WG member > • Joi White - IPC CSG > • David Donahue -IPC CSG > • Berry Cob - CBUC -RAP WG member > • Phil Corwin - CBUC -RAP WG member > • Mary Wong - NCSG > • Faisal Shah -RAP WG member > • Fred Felman -RAP WG member > • Other? > 8.3 Note: > • Marika Konings will provide Staff policy support for this effort. > • An email list is up and running with all of the above subscribed. > • The group will be polled regarding the regular time of the meetings > and date of the first meeting; it may be appropriate to use the > recurring time that the RAP group used. > Item 9: Cartagena Planning (10 Minutes) > 9.1 Action items from Brussels Wrap-Up Meeting > • Stéphane van Gelder to take the lead, with Glen's assistance, in > preparing the schedule for the GNSO calendar for the Cartagena meetings > in December 2010. > • Glen will follow-up with the ICANN meetings team regarding the > following: > o Coffee should be available in close proximity to the meeting rooms. > o Allowance should be made in the schedule for breaks between all the > meetings. > o Make Adobe Connect work better with all operating systems or > alternatives that allow participation from Linux based systems. > o Changing the start time of the Council meeting so that it is no so > early. > • Wendy Seltzer will lead a group of the following volunteers to > develop suggested improvements to the running of the GNSO Public Council > meetings: > o Tim Ruiz > o Kristina Rosette > o Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > o Edmon Chung > o Adrian Kinderis > o Others? > • A group will be formed to work on the GNSO Council interaction with > the Board. > o Volunteers: > o Terry Davis > o David Taylor > o Jaime Wagner > o Zahid Jamil > o Stéphane van Gelder > o Others? > o Stéphane volunteered to lead this effort. > • Target date for completion of work and submission of input to > Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September. > 9.2 Other issues? > > Item 10: Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (5 minutes) > 10.1 GNSO Volunteers: > • Terry Davis (NCA) > • Rafik Dammak (NCSG) > • Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias) > • Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR) > • Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign) > • Mike Rodenbaugh (CSG, CBUC) > • Zahid Jamil (CSG, CBUC) > • Rodney Joffe (RySG, NeuStar) > • Jaime Wagner (CSG, ISCPC) > 10.2 Status report (Chuck Gomes) > > Item 11: Audio-casting of Council meetings (5 minutes) > > 11.1 Refer to information sent to the Council list by Marika on 26 July > 2010. > 11.2 Implementation status > 11.3 Additional feedback? > > Item 12: Other Business (10 minutes) > > 12.1 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvement implementation > • Note: As part of the motion to approve implementation of the OSC CCT > recommendations, the Council resolved to convene a standing committee > whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing > implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the > chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams. > • Any suggestions regarding how to do this? > 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN > hemisphere > ________________________________________ > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 15:00UTC > ________________________________________ > California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 > Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 > Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 > Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 > Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 > Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 > Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 > Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 > Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 > Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day > ________________________________________ > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local > time (with exceptions) > > > > > > Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership > -- Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/