January 2009 - ALAC-Announce

Summary Minutes ALAC meeting 13 January
by At-Large Staff May 6, 2009

May 6, 2009

Dear all, The summary minutes, action items and audio recordings of the last ALAC meeting can now be found under the following URL: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009 The meeting minutes and action items are also attached below. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Summary Minutes 13 January ALAC meeting Participants ALAC: C Langdon-Orr, A Greenberg, S Bachollet, V Scartezini, A Peake, , P Vande Walle , B Brendler, F Seye Sylla, C Aguirre, J Ovidio Salgueiro (joined at 1400 UTC) Apologies: H Diakite, W Ludwig Absent: V Vivekandan, R Guerra, TH Nguyen (technical reasons), M El Bashir Liaisons: W Seltzer, A Piazza Guests: Liz Gasster Staff: H Ullrich, M Langenegger, MH Bouchoms 1. Roll Call The quorum was reached at 12:50 (UTC) (see above for participants) 2. Adoption of the Agenda The agenda was adopted. The chair decided to slightly alter the order to start with the business items and the actions to take. The present summary minutes follow the actual progression of the meeting. 3. Proposal to move the ALAC monthly meeting time A new Doodle will be started which contains the times from the previous slot and adds the last Saturday and Sunday of the Month as additional options to the 4th Tuesday of the month. ALAC monthly meetings should occur before the monthly RALO¹s gatherings. Staff will add the Saturday/Sunday option on the Doodle vote and the ALAC members will have up to 14 days to vote. A reminder will be sent by staff. 4. Review of current status of ALS applications 7 current applicants: CETIC AJB, Internauta Venezuela, AUI Peru: currently waiting for Due Diligence Bokk Jang Bokk Jef, CAPDA, FMAI: Regional advise not received yet ALAC vote on the NAROLO regional advice for Knujon. Approved: A Greenberg, C Langdon-Orr, V Scartezini, C Aguirre, P Vande Walle, A Peake, S Bachollet, F Seye Sylla, H Diakite no abstentions Knujon is accepted as certified ALS 5. Proposal of the GNSO/ALAC chair for a joint NCSG WG In favour: (H Diakite, F Seye Sylla, A Greenberg, S Bachollet, C Langdon-Orr, V Scartezini, P Vande Walle, A Peake, C Aguirre) C Aguirre, A Greenberg, C Langdon-Orr, S Bachollet volunteered to be part of this working group. F Seye Sylla will send an email for African volunteers, A Greenberg will ask D Younger and B Brendler from NARALO to volunteer. CLO insisted on the heavy work commitment: a minimum of one teleconference per week is required. CLO will work with A Doria to settle a Doodle meeting times voting poll 6. AOB 1. Agenda and ALS google.doc A Peake complained about the fact that there are no date stamps with any last-minute agenda modification which renders the follow-up difficult. It was suggested to resort to the revision tag for previous views of it. A Peake also complained about the current layout of the Google.doc for the ALS applications and does not permit an effective web-based tracking. 2. Reported cases of non-compliance issues with the RAA B Brendler called the attention of the ALAC to a number of comments received concerning specific compliance issues (onlineNick, GoDaddy) and referred to D Younger¹s comment requesting the ALAC to advise the ICANN Board to revoke the accreditation of failing registrars. C Langdon-Orr said these cases could be used to serve in the RRA WG. At ALAC level they can only be discussions in terms of principles of registrar/registry relations since ALAC does not have the resource to do due diligence. V Scartezini said there should be a fast-track between ALAC and the Council for these individual cases to be addressed to the Council staff who would do a formal due diligence. A Greenberg said there needed to be a liaison to which these issues could be brought, a streamline procedure. The ICANN Board would not intervene for such operational issues at the level of isolate cases. ALAC members will discuss online about the proper conduit. H Ullrich will create a Wiki page with the current registry/registrar relations that will serve as a discussion point at the Mexico meeting. ALAC will arrange a teleconference call with services staff and any other party before the next ALAC meeting. C Landon-Orr and A Greenberg will contact NARALO to clarify ALAC role on this matter. H Ullrich will place the discussion about the role of each structure: RALO¹s, ALAC and ALSes on the Mexico Agenda 3. ALAC/GNSO discussion about NCSG AI: C Langdon-Orr will tell A Doria that ALAC wishes to be involved in the commercial stakeholder group formation to represent the individuals. A Greenberg reminded that there would also be a public comment period when the commercial stakeholder group publishes their charter 4. Registration abuse Policy L Gasster commented that there is an Issue Report about the domain registrations abuse and a drafting team is currently preparing a recommendation on what the GNSO should do. The team is due to report back to the GNSO in 4 weeks. There is still possibility to join the team. The IR has been translated into five languages: EN, FR, SP, RU, and AR She added that there will be an e-crime workshop in Mexico. The next drafting team meeting will be on 16 January 1500 UTC and B Brendler will attend it. 7. Topics to discuss at the joint SO/AC meeting in Mexico. There was confusion about what the percentages of the 2nd survey outcome report meant and how they should be read. The layout will be redrafted and then the survey outcome will be sent to the ALAC members. They will chose a topic or add topics in view of the SO/AC summit meeting at Mexico as the survey serves two ends: summit WG and SO/AC Mexico meeting on day 1. Staff will work with ALAC ExCom to rework the layout of the results and have it distributed to the ALAC members and will set up a doodle vote for the topics. 8. Revision of 9 December 2008 action items PSC: the recording of the PSC meeting extract is missing. It is needed to prepare the statement for the PSC and staff will remedy to that shortly. GNSO single purpose call on new gTLD¹s occurred on 18 December. A resource page for ALAC statements on gTLD¹s was set up (linked to the agenda). It includes two postings from B Brendler, one with an overview of general statements to consider and the other with specific comments on each module of the new GTLD guidebook. B Brendler will refine the documents, incorporate into it the comments received and produce a first draft statement to send to each RALO to comment within 2 weeks. The individual comment of the RALO¹s as well as the individual comment of the ALSes would be appended to it and sent to the ICANN Board after an ALAC vote on it. A Greenberg commented that there would be a teleconference meeting of the GNSO on 15 January 1600 UTC, open to all interested during the week, the purpose of which being to discuss the changes ICANN staff made on the initial GNSO recommendation that was approved by the ICANN Board. C Langdon-Orr said she would attend it and keep AlAC posted. 9. GNSO Whois Study (Liz Gasster participation) Liz Gasster, GNSO Policy officer, explained the historical background of the demand for possible WHOIS studies. She commented that back in 2007, the GNSO had decided that comprehensive studies of WHOIS would be needed to inform the policy debate. In February 2008, the GNSO solicited proposals for these studies from the public and the GAC. The GAC submitted 15 proposals, the community 25. These proposals had been categorized in function of logical groupings and divided into theoretical subject areas. Now, they solicit the viewpoints from the constituencies and the ALAC and the GAC to assess the level of importance of feasibility of each study proposal. She then explained the two documents given: the report of 26 August 2008 with a link to the proposals and an Excel spreadsheet with the actual priority ratings given by the constituencies. (See recordings 1:55). Originally the Council wishes the comments before 16 January but there could be a request for extension of the time. NCUC and the RC don¹t want any study. The Council also wishes to receive commonly understood definitions on 8 terms and ALAC members are asked to read the proposed definitions and comment on them. The proposed terms are based on past discussions and articles. Individual comments are expected any time within the two next weeks at policy-staff(a)icann.org. L Gasster clarified that for the feasibility rating, o¹ meant that one did not know and -1¹ one did not think that was feasible, 1¹ meaning it is feasible. B Brendler said he and D Younger had participated very early in the process. He recommended to read the GAC¹s proposals first as they were consumer-focused. It was agreed to set up a doodle poll for a one single topic call prior to the deadline of the ranking poll a week before the end of the month. The voting will be instantaneous and B Brendler would arrange the final document for the GNSO Staff will work with L Gasster to set up a doodle vote for the topic call on WHOIS ranking studies. The call will be held a week before the end of the month Staff will see if a meeting between L Gasster and the RALO¹s meetings still to run this month can be arranged to discuss WHOIS documents 10. Update on Mexico summit C Langdon-Orr said she has received no feedback from the ALAC letter to the Board concerning the past Cairo Summit problems but that this would be handled by the new PP WG There were great concerns about the flying plans and the programmed return flight on the Thursday afternoon. ALAC and the RALO Senior officers should attend the ICANN Board meeting on the Friday. S Bachollet commented that all the At-Large participants should be entitled to stay until Friday so that they could see the whole process from beginning to end. It was commented that since ICANN announced that the per diem of the GNSO participants would be adjusted in case they had internet included in the room, it implied that there would be funds for ALAC participants for internet. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ALAC monthly meeting schedule Staff will add the Saturday/Sunday option on the Doodle vote. The Saturday/Sunday need to be after the monthly APRALO meeting. ALAC Members will answer the doodle poll within the next 7. Staff will send reminders to ensure that everyone votes 2. Proposal of the GNSO/ALAC chair for a joint NCSG WG A Greenberg to contact D younger and B Brendler to ask for his participation to GNSO/ALAC WG H Diakite, F Seye Sylla to email within 2 days AFRALO for volunteers to GNSO/ALAC WG CLO and A Doria to settle a Doodle voting poll for the GNSO/ALAC WG meeting times 3. Reported cases of non-compliance issues with the RAA ALAC members will discuss online about the proper conduit to report isolate cases of registrar failing compliances. H Ullrich will create a Wiki page with the current registry/registrar relations ALAC to arrange teleconference call towards the end of this month before the next ALAC meeting with services staff and any other party interested, i.e. D Younger, to discuss about the right process to address the registrar failing compliance issues A Greenberg will draft a short ALAC statement for the services staff and NARALO outlining ALAC¹s role with regards to RAA compliance issues. AI: H Ullrich to place the discussion about the role of each structure: RALO¹s, ALAC and ALSes on the Mexico Agenda (actions they can take on comments reporting non-compliance of registrars reports, etc.) 4. Registration abuse Policy RALO¹s are to disseminate the IR on Registration abuse policy among their members 5. PSC Committee staff to proceed to the PSC recording extraction and posting 6. New gTLD guidebook RALO¹s will have two weeks to comment on a draft statement on gTLD guidebook that will be sent to them 7. GNSO Whois Studies Staff to see if a meeting between L Gasster and the RALO¹s meetings still to run this month can be arranged to discuss WHOIS documents Staff to work with L Gasster to set up a doodle vote on meeting times for the topic call on WHOIS ranking studies. The meeting should occur before the week of 26 January. ALAC participants to look at the commonly agreed definitions on WHOIS studies terms and comment on them through the comment list policy-staff(a)icann.org within two weeks.

1 1

Audio Recording of the discussion on Improving Institutional Confidence
by At-Large Staff Jan. 26, 2009

Jan. 26, 2009

Dear all, We were asked to provide an extract of the recording on the discussion on At-Large¹s involvement in the Improving Institutional Confidence process launched by the President¹s Strategy Committee (PSC). The discussion was held during the December ALAC meeting, with the participation of Pierre Dandjinou and Marilyn Cade from the PSC. Please follow the below URL to listen to the discussion: English: http://media1.icann.org/ramgen/ALAC/PSC-Discussion-09-12-2008-EN.mp3 French: http://media1.icann.org/ramgen/ALAC/PSC-Discussion-09-12-2008-FR.mp3 Spanish: http://media1.icann.org/ramgen/ALAC/PSC-Discussion-09-12-2008-ES.mp3 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Initial Report on Fast Flux Hosting Open for Public Comment
by At-Large Staff Jan. 26, 2009

Jan. 26, 2009

Public Comment: Initial Report on Fast Flux Hosting 26 January 2009 A public comment period opens today for 20 days on an Initial Report on Fast Flux Hosting. In May 2008, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) and called for the creation of a working group on fast flux. The working group was asked to consider the following questions: * Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed? * Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed? * Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? * Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? * How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting? * How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting? * What technical (e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate) and policy (e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior) measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux? * What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? * What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation? * What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux? The Group was also tasked to obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making. The Fast Flux Working Group started its deliberations in June 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. In this report, the Working Group has provided initial answers to the charter questions, has drawn interim conclusions and has provided a number of ideas for next steps for discussion and feedback during the public comment period. It should be noted that at this stage the Working Group has not reached consensus on any of the ideas for next steps outlined in the report. The objective of the Working Group will be to review the input received during the public comment period and determine which, if any, of the proposed next steps receive the support of the Working Group for inclusion in the final report. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/fast-flux-initial-report-26ja n09.pdf ) is posted for public comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed for redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for further action. The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete Initial Report [PDF, 1,210K] before submitting comments. Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to fast-flux-initial-report(a)icann.org. Public comments received can be accessed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/fast-flux-initial-report/. The deadline for submission of comments is 15 February 2009. Related links: Fast Flux Hosting Issues Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux- 25mar08.pdf [PDF, 62K] -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Heidi Ullrich, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

RESEND: Current GNSO Whois study ranking
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 22, 2009

Jan. 22, 2009

Sorry - my e-mail program seems to have mangled the attachment. Let's try this. ------------------------- In preparation for the Whois discussion, it may be useful to see how the GNSO constituencies have ranked the studies (excluding the Registrar Constituency and NCUC who have intentionally not submitted rankings). The studies are sorted in priority order, and the tentative motion going to the GNSO will recommend the first 6 groups - that is, those with an overall rating of 2.5 or more. Alan

1 0

Current GNSO Whois study ranking
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 22, 2009

Jan. 22, 2009

In preparation for the Whois discussion, it may be useful to see how the GNSO constituencies have ranked the studies (excluding the Registrar Constituency and NCUC who have intentionally not submitted rankings). The studies are sorted in priority order, and the tentative motion going to the GNSO will recommend the first 6 groups - that is, those with an overall rating of 2.5 or more. Alan

1 0

Adobe Connect Room for WHOIS meeting
by At-Large Staff Jan. 22, 2009

Jan. 22, 2009

Dear all, There will be an Adobe Connect meeting room for today¹s discussion on WHOIS, which will start at 2030 UTC: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/r35205777/ You can find the relevant documents for this meeting under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?alac_whois_discussion_13_january_2009 For participation instructions, please visit: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?how_can_i_participate_in_this_meeti ng Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

List of Travellers to the At-Large Summit receiving travel support
by At-Large Staff Jan. 22, 2009

Jan. 22, 2009

Dear Community: As requested by various At-Large community members recently, and in the interests of accountability and transparency of operations, we have established a page where you may see the list of travellers authorised to receive travel support. Note that some travellers who were originally authorised are not on the list as they have let us know that they will be unable to attend the Summit. The URL is: https://st.icann.org/summit-wg/index.cgi?summit_participants Note that in due course this information will migrate to the special session for the At-Large Summit on http://www.atlarge.icann.org. Stay tuned :) -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

INVITATION: WHOIS BRIEFING BY LIZ GASSTER TODAY, 22 JAN 20:30-21:30 UTC
by At-Large Staff Jan. 22, 2009

Jan. 22, 2009

Dear All, Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor for the GNSO, has offered to participate in a teleconference on WHOIS. The results of the doodle in which 6 out of 7 people voted indicated that Thursday, 22 January at 20:30-21:30 UTC would be the best time. Please find participation instructions under: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?how_can_i_participate_in_this_meeti ng. If there is interest for French or Spanish interpretation for this meeting, please contact us as soon as possible. Please note, however, that we can not guarantee interpretation for this meeting due to time constraints. As a reminder, participants will be asked to engage in a discussion to rank the WHOIS issues that were presented at the last ALAC meeting by priorities. Please find further information on the WHOIS priority issues under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?alac_whois_discussion_13_january_2009 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

DOODLE for WHOIS Meeting this week
by At-Large Staff Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

Dear all, Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor for the GNSO, offered to participate in a teleconference on WHOIS this Thursday or Friday. Participants are asked to engage in a discussion to rank the WHOIS issues that were presented at the last ALAC meeting by priorities. Please find further information on the WHOIS priority issues under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?alac_whois_discussion_13_january_2009 In order to help us plan this meeting, please use the below link to an online meeting planer and flag all your available times: http://www.doodle.com/wvmyu8y2nt93e4fv Liz would be available on either Thursday, 22 January or Friday, 23 January at 2030 UTC or 2100 UTC. The call will be scheduled for 60 minutes. Time zone support has been activated for this poll. Please make sure you are using the correct time zone. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Finalised Results of At-Large Summit Survey - Topics for Five Workshops Chosen by Community
by At-Large Staff Jan. 19, 2009

Jan. 19, 2009

Dear All: We are pleased to provide below the listing of subjects which the five working groups of the At-Large Summit will address. As you may know, the At-Large Summit has as a core element five working groups that will deliberate upon and agree final statements on areas of policy of importance to the At-Large community and the ICANN community as a whole. In order to determine what the five subjects should be, At-Large Structures were surveyed in late December 2008 to early January 2009 and provided with 13 topics to choose from; they were also able to write-in additional subjects, which could then be ranked by those respondents who filled in the survey subsequently. The results as reproduced below may be independently verified at the following URL: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=NbehmmLKWssBgvENq6SN Selection of Working Group Topics 1 At-Large engagement in ICANN (Including goals, organization (ALS, RALO, ALAC), reviews, strategic planning, Individual Internet users participation, etc.) 2 The Future Structure and Governance of ICANN (the Improving Institutional Confidence process) 3 New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) including IDN gTLDs 4 ICANN Transparency and Accountability 5 DNS Security Issues within ICANN¹s Remit As requested at the last Summit Working Group meeting, the Staff have combined two categories the original topic ³The Future Structure and Governance of ICANN² with the topic added-in by a respondent: ³ICANN¹s Relationship with Governments, the UN and the ITU². Those Summit attendees who have yet to respond will be invited to choose from amongst the above topics so that they may be assigned to the working group most of interest to them whilst retaining a balance of participants across working groups and regions. The working groups will then be convened telephonically by their interim co-chairs in the very near future to begin their work. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Heidi Ullrich, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording of the Council discussion on new gTLDS
by At-Large Staff Jan. 16, 2009

Jan. 16, 2009

Message forwarded from the GNSO Secretariat *************************************** Please find the MP3 recording of the Council discussion on new gTLDS at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-newgtlds-20090115.mp3 posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan Participants present on the call Council ======== Avri Doria - GNSO Council chair Chuck Gomes - Registries GNSO Council vice chair Edmon Chung - Registries Jordi Iparraguirre - Registries Kristina Rosette - IPC Ute Decker - IPC Stéphane van Gelder - Registrar Olga Cavalli - NCA Zahid Jamil - CBUC Tony Holmes - ISP Tony Harris - ISP Greg Ruth - ISP Mary Wong - NCUC William Drake - NCUC Carlos Souza - NCUC Terry Davis - NCA Olga Cavalli - NCA Alan Greenberg - ALAC liaison Pierre Bonis - ccNSO observer Absent apologies Adrian Kinderis Tim Ruiz Observers ========== Ken Stubbs - Ry Vanda Scartizini - ALAC Nick Wood - IPC Danny Younger Heike Jensen - ALS Terre des Femmes Michael Palage Ronald N. Andruff - RNA Partners, Inc. CBUC Steve Delbianco - CBUC Cheryl Langdon Orr - ALAC Chair Mike O'Connor - CBUC Jeff Neuman - Ryc Neustar Dirk Krischenowski - dotBerlin Caroline Greer - dotMobi J. Scott Evans - IPC Sébastien Bachollet - ALAC Paul Diaz - Registrar Jose Arce Carlos Aguirre Staff ====== Denise Michel Kurt Pritz John Jeffrey Dan Halloran Olof Nordling Patrick Jones Marika Konings Craig Schwartz Liz Gasster Karen Lentz Karla Valente Glen de Saint Gery Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Public comments called for on Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)
by At-Large Staff Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

Message forwarded from the GNSO Secretariat ******************************************* [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Dear All, You are encouraged to submit comments on the Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) from 9 to 30 January 2009. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jan09-en.htm Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) A public comment period opened on Friday 9 January 2009 for 21 days on an Initial Report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm The IRTP Part A PDP concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid 'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for 'partial bulk transfers' between registrars. A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. PLEASE NOTE: The Working Group will not make a final decision on which solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of the comments received during the public comment period and in the final constituency statements has taken place. Following its deliberations, the Working Group has made some preliminary conclusions for each issue, which it hopes will inspire further comments from the public as well as the constituencies. These preliminary conclusions are as follows: Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in which it is currently used to facilitate transfers. Some members suggested that finding a way to make the Registrant e-mail address more readily available could be addressed as part of an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS protocol. This could be through updates to the existing protocol, modification of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or adoption of the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol. However, after review and discussion none of these options received broad agreement. The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address, future IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would not change the current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to notify the registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before the process is completed. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic authentication. However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether these options should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be left to market solutions. Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is no need to incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars at this stage. The Working Group believes that these scenarios can be addressed either through the existing Bulk Transfer provisions, or through existing market solutions. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for further action. The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete Initial Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] before submitting comments. Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to irtp-initial-report(a)icann.org. Public comments received can be accessed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-initial-report/. The deadline for submission of comments is 30 January 2009. Related links: Part A Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] Existing Transfer Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm Thank you for your cooperation. kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Result of the extended vote on the Updated ALAC response
by At-Large Staff Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

Dear all, With 12 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent vote on the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review, we can confirm that the result was quorate. The vote has been extended until January 10th because some ALAC members experienced technical issues when trying to access the vote over the Holidays. Number of voters: 12 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 80.00% ³Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?² * 1) Yes 11 votes, 91.67% Alan Greenberg, Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Robert Guerra, Fatimata Seye Sylla, Thu Hue Nguyen, Vanda Scartezini, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Hawa Diakite * 2) No 1 vote, 8.33% Carlos Aguirre * 3) Abstain 0 votes, 0.00% You may verify the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=TeiMY7XSkkHbnLGmjy6K (please note that Hawa Diakite¹s vote is not listed on this summary as she has submitted her vote by email due to a technical problem) When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. The following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: Jose Ovidio Salgueiro Mohamed El Bashir Vivek Vivekandan Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Draft Agenda for New gTLD meeting 15 Jan
by At-Large Staff Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Message forwarded from the GNSO Secretariat ****************************************** Hi Based on what I have heard spoken of so far, the following is a draft agenda for the New gTLD meeting on 15 January. 1 - Discuss areas at variance with GNSO policy principles, recommendations and guidelines. Possible areas include, i.a.: - Principle G: Do the review criteria infringe on freedom of expression - Recommendation 1: Are the price levels discriminatory? - Recommendation 2: Extent of confusing similarity - Recommendation 5: Reserved names issues - geographic - 2 char IDN - Recommendation 17: what is the clear compliance and sanctions process? - IG B: Recommended cost based fees with different applicants paying different fees. Are these fees really cost based? Are some applicants subsidizing other applicants? - IG F: Board resolution process was recommended instead of Auction - IG O: Are there any plans for a fee reduction schedule for gTLS applicants from economies classified as least developed? - Others? 2 - Discuss the motions we passed vis a vis new gTLDs - introducion of idn tlds - Implementation guideline (IG) E 3 - Discuss the comments received 4 - Discuss follow-up process to this meeting

1 0

New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at 16:00UTC
by At-Large Staff Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Message forwarded from the GNSO Secretariat **************************************** Dear All, As agreed upon during the Council meeting, a new gTLD Council discussion is scheduled for Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 16:00 UTC. The call will be open to observers and alternates if Council members cannot attend. Please RSVP to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org so that we can make sure there will be enough lines. The call will be recorded and transcribed and posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 14:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+1DST 21:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 03:00 (Friday 16 January.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Dial-in details: PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: GTLD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0494 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4862 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7733 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5243 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1386 1-800-880-485 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-89-654 0800-999-636 BELGIUM 32-2-402-2432 0800-4-8360 BRAZIL 0800-8912038 CHILE 1230-020-0281 CHINA* 86-400-810-4760 10800-712-1193 10800-120-1193 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156463 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-15 800-700-167 DENMARK 45-7014-0238 8088-6075 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-00-04 080-511-1431 GERMANY 49-69-2222-52104 0800-216-1601 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0639 00800-12-5999 HONG KONG 852-2286-5632 800-964-136 HUNGARY 06-800-15227 INDIA 000-800-852-1216 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3500 IRELAND 353-1-246-0036 1800-931-782 ISRAEL 1-80-9303048 ITALY 39-02-3600-0326 800-906-585 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4763 00531-12-1149 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5154 00531-12-1149 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1314 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8121 MEXICO 001-866-627-0541 NETHERLANDS 31-20-710-9321 0800-023-4655 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4641 0800-443-793 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-14 800-11982 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072119 POLAND 00-800-1210067 PORTUGAL 8008-12179 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9613011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9197 800-120-4057 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-15 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93390 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1052 00798-14800-6323 SPAIN 34-91-414-15-44 800-099-279 SWEDEN 46-8-566-10-782 0200-887-612 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-7718 0800-000-038 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7346 00801-137-565 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65091 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9015 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3215 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2115 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7019-0812 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1415 0800-018-0795 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3439 USA 1-210-795-0472 877-818-6787 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3205 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Help build the new GNSO
by At-Large Staff Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Message forwarded from the GNSO Secretariat ******************************************* http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09jan09-en.htm Help Build The New GNSO Volunteers Are Now Being Accepted To Join Work Teams That Will Develop GNSO Improvement Implementation Plans 9 January 2009 The GNSO is creating five new Work Teams to be the incubators through which implementation plans for ICANN Board approved GNSO improvement recommendations can be developed and proposed by members of the ICANN community. Each Work Team will be made up of community volunteers who have interest in and expertise in one of five main focus areas: Constituency/Stakeholder Group Operations GNSO Operations New Working Group Model. New GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Community Communications and Coordination We encourage you to participate in one of the Work Teams. If you do have an interest in participating, please send a message to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org indicating which Work Team you want to join. Please include in the message your name, affiliation (constituency or individual), company/organization, position/title, email address, time zone, telephone numbers, and describe your specific interest (professional and/or personal) in joining the team. All personal information will be kept confidential. The Work Teams are open to all interested volunteers. Work Team meeting times will probably overlap, so please consider joining only one Work Team. Background information and the scope of each newly chartered team are summarized below. Background Information The ICANN Board announced sweeping recommendations for improving the GNSO last June at their meeting in Paris. The implementation work of the GNSO Improvements effort is underway and there are many exciting opportunities available for ICANN community input and support to help achieve the goals and objectives adopted by the Board. The effort is progressing on four parallel tracks: The GNSO Council is working to develop the transition to a newly structured GNSO Council by June 2009. Existing GNSO constituencies are preparing to submit their re-confirmations to the ICANN Board. New Stakeholder Groups are developing petitions and charters for ICANN Board recognition, and The GNSO is creating five special Work Teams to develop specific proposals, processes and mechanisms for implementing the ICANN Board's Recommendations. All four areas require significant investments of time and brainpower from members of the ICANN community, but the Work Team efforts, in particular, need an infusion of enthusiasm, passion, expertise and fresh ideas from the entire community to move the implementation forward. Scope of the Work Teams Constituency Operations Team (COT) This team will develop guidelines and mechanisms to help GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups operate in ways that ensure transparency, accountability and accessibility, including outreach efforts to encourage broader participation within the GNSO by explaining the added value of membership in these groups. In its Paris recommendations, the Board directed GNSO constituencies to develop participation rules and operating procedures that set certain minimum standards regarding transparency and accountability. The Board emphasized that criteria for participation in any ICANN constituency should be objective, clearly stated, and standardized. In addition, the Board directed constituencies to develop global, targeted outreach programs aimed at increasing participation and interest in the GNSO policy process, including information on the option to self-form new constituencies. Some of the specific recommendations approved by the Board include: Develop a global outreach program to broaden participation in current constituencies. Enhance existing constituencies by developing recommendations on the following: Develop a set of top-level participation guidelines based on the principles as defined in the GNSO recommendations, while recognizing differences between constituencies and that one size may not fit all constituencies; and Develop a "tool kit" of basic administrative, operational and technical services available to all constituencies Please refer to the draft COT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team. Communication and Coordination Team (CCT) This team will develop tools for increased communication effectiveness and efficiency within the GNSO and improve GNSO communication and coordination with other ICANN structures, including members of the ICANN Board, other Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). The Board stated that the Council as well as the GNSO constituencies should consider additional ways in which the GNSO can further improve communication, cooperation and coordination with other ICANN structures. The Board added that there should be more frequent contact and communication between the GNSO Council, GNSO constituencies and the members the Council elects to the Board, and among the Chairs of the GNSO, other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees especially in advance of each ICANN Meeting. Some of the specific recommendations approved by the Board include: Improve the GNSO's: Web site Document management capacity Ability to solicit meaningful public comments on its work Coordination with other ICANN structures. Please refer to the draft CCT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_team. GNSO Council Operations Team (GCOT) This work team will develop any changes needed to the Council's operational procedures and role in response to the Board approved GNSO structure including determining what steps are needed to establish the role of the Council as a "strategic manager of the policy process" and preparing clear rules for the establishment of new constituencies within stakeholder groups, while recognizing that differences exist between stakeholder groups and constituencies. The Board recommended that the Council move away from being a legislative body concerned primarily with voting towards becoming a strategic entity focused on overseeing and managing Working Groups, which will be primarily engaged in developing policy for the GNSO. The Council should adopt term limits and implement a training and development curriculum for its members. The Board endorsed a new bicameral voting structure for the newly reorganized Council comprised of four broad stakeholder groups. It authorized the establishment of a "contracted party house" (made up of registry and registrar stakeholder group representatives) and a second "non-contracted party house" (made up of commercial and non-commercial stakeholder group representatives) and set parameters for their respective compositions. The Board also approved the presence of a voting Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) in each house and subsequently authorized a third Council-level non-voting appointee. The Board also approved a methodology for the GNSO Council to select a Chair and approved various voting thresholds recommended by the community. Some of the specific recommendations approved by the Board include: Determine what steps are needed to establish the role of the Council as a "strategic manager of the policy process." Define and develop scope and responsibilities of any other standing "committees" as recommended by the BGC WG (those suggested to date: committee to analyze trends; committee to benchmark policy implementation) Develop "Statement of Interest" and "Declaration of Interest" forms. Develop curriculum for training Council members, constituents, facilitators and others. Prepare clear rules for the establishment of new constituencies within stakeholder groups, while recognizing that differences exist between stakeholder groups and constituencies. Review and recommend amendments as appropriate regarding methods for encouraging, promoting and introducing new constituencies, while recognizing that differences exist between stakeholder groups and constituencies. Please refer to the draft GCOT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team. Working Group Model Team (WGMT) This team will collaborate to develop a new Working Group model for GNSO policy development and decision making. The ICANN Board recommended that Working Groups become the focal point for GNSO policy development to enhance the process by making it more inclusive and representative, and, ultimately, more effective and efficient. The Board noted that this approach can be a more constructive way of establishing areas of agreement than task forces, where membership is limited and discussion can become polarized along constituency lines. Working Groups also enable key parties to become involved in the beginning and work together to address complex and/or controversial issues. Appointing skilled chairs and drafters, as well as proper scoping of the Working Group's objectives, will be integral parts of a successful model. The Board urged that steps be taken immediately to move to a Working Group model for future policy development work, developing appropriate operating principles, rules and procedures that can draw upon expertise gained from other organization's successful policy development efforts, as appropriate. Please refer to the draft WGMT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?pdp_team. Policy Development Process (PDP) Team (PDPT) This team will work to develop a more efficient and effective policy development process for the GNSO community. The Board emphasized that the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) needs to be revised to make it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs. It should be brought in-line with the time and effort actually required to develop policy and made consistent with ICANN's existing contracts (including, but not limited to, clarifying the appropriate scope of GNSO "consensus policy" development). The Board stated that, while the procedure for developing "consensus policies" will need to continue to be established by the Bylaws as long as required by ICANN's contracts, the GNSO Council and Staff should develop and propose new PDP rules for the Board's consideration and approval that contain more flexibility. The new rules should emphasize the importance of the preparation that must be done before launch of a Working Group or other activity, such as public discussion, fact-finding, and expert research in order to properly define the scope, objective and schedule for a specific policy development goal, and the development of metrics for measuring success. Please refer to the draft PDPT Charter for more information: https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?pdp_team For additional information about the GNSO Improvements Implementation process please consult the GNSO Improvements Information Page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Vote on the updated ALAC response extended
by Matthias Langenegger Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

Dear all, Following a series of complaints from ALAC members whose vote on the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review was not recorded, the ALAC Chair decided to extend the vote. The following ALAC members experienced technical difficulties in this vote and have contacted us: Vanda Scartezini Fatimata Seye Sylla Mohamed El Bashir Hawa Diakite Alan Greenberg Thu Hue Nguyen They received a separate email with their voting credentials a couple of minutes ago and will have time until Saturday, 10 January at 1200 UTC to submit their vote. The final result will be announced in the coming week. The question to be put is: Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement? With possible answers: Yes No Abstain We have been in contact with our online voting provider BigPulse with regards to the reason of this problem and have been informed that there are two reasons for the problem that occurred: * The only way a voter can be certain the vote was recorded is to receive a vote receipt. However, vote receipt was not enabled for this poll. It is therefore possible that the voter did not get notification about a misrecorded vote. We will make sure that vote receipt will be enabled for all future votes and apologize to those who have been affected by this problem. Please contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org if you do not receive a receipt after having voted. * There was a sever issue on the BigPuse server on December 24th, which could have affected the votes submitted on that day. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Results of the vote on the new vote on the RAA package
by At-Large Staff Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

Dear all, With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent vote on the ³New vote on the ALAC Recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package², we can confirm that the result was quorate. Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 ³ICANN staff has told the GNSO that the only way that the current RAA package of amendments can be approved is if they pass a super-majority (66%) vote accepting the package. If it is not approved, any future policy development must be done over using current PDP processes. Please choose one of the following options:² * 1) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future 12 votes (85.71%): ( Alan Greenberg, Adam Peake, Hawa Diakite, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Robert Guerra, Fatimata Seye Sylla, Thu Hue Nguyen, Vanda Scartezini, Cheryl Landon-Orr, VC Vivekanadan) * 2) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package 0 votes (0.00%) * 3) Abstain 2 votes ( 14.29%) : ( Carlos Aguirre, Mohamed El Bashir) You may verify the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=ahTyZywYNmDnmCrvMp9T When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: Jose Ovidio Salgueiro Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response
by At-Large Staff Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

Dear all, Seven out of 15 ALAC Members have voted in the recent vote on the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report, therefore the quorum was not reached. Number of voters: 7· Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 46.67% ³Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?² Yes (85.71%) (Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Robert Guerra, Cheryl Landon-Orr) No (14.29%) (Carlos Aguirre) Abstain (0.00%) You may verify the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=eTuRkbjiyZCk2DRJXXAU When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: Alan Greenberg Vanda Scartezini Fatimata Seye Sylla Hawa Diakite Mohamed El Bashir Jose Ovidio Salgueiro Vivek Vivekandan Thu Hue Nguyen Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Date
by At-Large Staff Jan. 6, 2009

Jan. 6, 2009

Dear all, The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, which was requested by the ALAC is now available in the five UN languages under http://gnso.icann.org/policies/. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0