<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" 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 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@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'>What do you think is being replaced Tim? What responsibility do
you think would be shirked?<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'>Chuck<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 style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<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"'> Tim Ruiz
[mailto:tim@godaddy.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> council@gnso.icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday
regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports
from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>This just further entrenches my
concerns that that we have set off an<br>
effort to diminsh the GNSO's role within ICANN policy making (and/or<br>
increase that of the ACs beyond what was envisioned in privatizing this<br>
medium). So I do not support Cheryl's suggestion given that she clearly<br>
includes that as part of the goal for calling this effort together.<br>
<br>
We should be very concerned and cautious about shirking our<br>
responsibility as managers of policy development for the generic name<br>
space by allowing so-called "community working groups" or "cross<br>
community" initiatives to replace GNSO policy processes. <br>
<br>
Tim<br>
<br>
> -------- Original Message --------<br>
> Subject: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday<br>
> regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on<br>
> reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...<br>
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <br>
> Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 8:07 am<br>
> To: "Council GNSO" <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC<br>
> Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of
the GAC. <br>
> Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected
to 7<br>
> October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl’s message), under agenda ‘Item<br>
> 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat’ I would like to<br>
> request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should
respond. <br>
> In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl’s message:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> “My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the<br>
> knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some
of the<br>
> matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to<br>
> collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as
a<br>
> joint activity? It is our belief<br>
> that particularly where we were jointly operating as
Chartering<br>
> Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be<br>
> quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so
the<br>
> ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and
more<br>
> robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built<br>
> policy processes in ICANN.”<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> “. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board<br>
> and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and<br>
> materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants<br>
> and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of
the<br>
> Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to
depth and<br>
> time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community<br>
> (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by
the<br>
> Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist
our<br>
> understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also
be<br>
> requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board
briefing<br>
> materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the
Board<br>
> Books) under the previously announced intentions
and guidelines for<br>
> these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage
the<br>
> community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a<br>
> similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be
requesting<br>
> information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as
we go<br>
> into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to
the<br>
> ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.”<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Please forward this request to your respective SGs and<br>
> constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7<br>
> October.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Thanks, Chuck<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr<br>
> [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] <br>
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM<br>
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca; Frank March<br>
> Cc: alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org<br>
> Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the<br>
> recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from
various<br>
> WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> As discussed<br>
> in our brief chat yesterday, the ALAC at its meeting on
the<br>
> 28th discussed several matters and concerns to our<br>
> community and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG<br>
> activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising
out of<br>
> the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat
at Trondheim,<br>
>
Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO)<br>
> leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and
participants to<br>
> the aforementioned WG's which as you know range from the<br>
> 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI) through the Joint<br>
> Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite
or multi SOAC Cross Community WG<br>
> for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC
and<br>
> ALAC; the ALAC had formally appointed a Liaison from us as a
joint<br>
> CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under<br>
> role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final
draft<br>
> GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11
of GNSO<br>
> Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc ) and both
these Liaisons<br>
> addressed serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the<br>
> Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that
"Cheryl<br>
> and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering<br>
> organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's<br>
> reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report
from<br>
> the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's
and<br>
> Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either<br>
> by the ALAC or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that<br>
> might occur (this will be followed though on either jointly
with<br>
> other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28<br>
> Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I am writing to you with this information and the<br>
> following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider what next
steps<br>
> they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC
intends<br>
> to do. As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint<br>
> JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the
8th<br>
> of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may
be<br>
> of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS
specific<br>
> matter as well as whatever might be raised regarding Rec6CWG.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On behalf of the At-Large Community involved<br>
> and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and<br>
> deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat where they were<br>
> considering the new<br>
> gTLD program Application Guidelines etc., ALAC
will<br>
> be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting
some<br>
> information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG<br>
> participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the<br>
> resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some<br>
> information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the
recommendations<br>
> from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those
with<br>
> Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we
can<br>
> be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those<br>
> resolutions, we will also be requesting access to<br>
> and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and
staff<br>
> briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the<br>
> previously announced intentions and guidelines for these<br>
> publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the<br>
> community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a<br>
> similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be
requesting<br>
> information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as
we go<br>
> into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to
the<br>
> ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> There is concern in our community that the briefings and<br>
> staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of<br>
> information and the specifics of the
various recommendations in<br>
> these reports, nor that sufficient time or debate was
allocated<br>
> to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or
otherwise<br>
> these fears.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge<br>
> of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the
matters<br>
> we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate
and<br>
> proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint
activity?<br>
> It is our belief that particularly where we were
jointly<br>
> operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode
this<br>
> would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish
to<br>
> do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build<br>
> better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up<br>
> consensus built policy processes in ICANN.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it<br>
> to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and<br>
> Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have<br>
> an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO<br>
> Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any<br>
> discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note
also<br>
> that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value<br>
> any individual or partial/subset interactions and
interventions<br>
> from your Members and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable
to<br>
> join us in cross community collaboration on this...<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this<br>
> proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed
most<br>
> suitable and effective on this issue in the near future. Please note
that<br>
> by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC)<br>
> where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback,<br>
> guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as
leadership<br>
> and key representation in the ICANN Community we can
I believe work
more effectively and successfully in<br>
> concert and collaboration rather than by divided effort on
this<br>
> and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was
as<br>
> well.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Kindest regards,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>