<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<title>Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are</title>
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Good initiative, Michael.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As I recall, in the video interview with PDT and RB posted on the ICANN home page at the conclusion of the Cartagena meeting, PDT is asked about this open/closed
question -- and after noting that ICANN’s default position is to hold open meetings, he then says the matter hasn’t been worked out yet, and then further volunteers that while the meeting might be for the most part open, it might be closed in part (or key
participants might head into a back room) when sensitive matters or an impasse arose. So I would suggest that the letter address that possibility and urge that matters not be resolved behind closed doors and then brought back into an open meeting simply for
ratification, with the community unable to observe the dialogue that led to the resolution.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Also, while I’m not suggesting it be raised in the letter (which should be confined to the transparency issue) it’s quite likely that any resolution of new
gTLD matters will be in general terms, as is the usual practice in large meetings, with technical details left to staff. Given the short time between Geneva and San Francisco it’s not clear to me how staff will incorporate these revisions in an amended proposed
final Guidebook and make that available to the community with sufficient time to permit adequate review prior to SF. I guess we’ll just see how that goes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Michael D. Palage<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> bc-gnso@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately
to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did
so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Michael<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">DRAFT TEXT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing
of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining
work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation
appears to be the first time that ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears
to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué,
we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds
three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically,
that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:32.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:32.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">
Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.”
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:31.5pt;text-indent:.5pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">
Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to “ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” While the GAC is clearly
suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:32.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:32.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">
The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns
of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:32.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:32.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">
Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN
embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none">Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude
non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported
the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%">We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees
would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>