- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Correction: Fwd: Letter from ICANN Board to GAC on Enforcing new gTLD applicant commitments
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2013

Feb. 13, 2013

The 2nd URL is missing a character. The correct one is: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm At 12/02/2013 10:11 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>Dear Heather, >> >>On behalf of the Board, I write to follow up on >>our commitment in our letter of 16 January 2013, to provide >>a report on our efforts to address one item of >>advice contained in the GAC Toronto Communiqué. >> >>Background >> >>In its Toronto Communiqué, the GAC requested a >>written briefing from the ICANN Board on "how >>ICANN will ensure that any commitments made by >>[New gTLD] applicants, in their applications or as a >>result of any subsequent changes, will be >>overseen and enforced by ICANN." The GAC advised the Board >>that, "it is necessary for all of these >>statements of commitment and objectives to be transformed into >>binding contractual commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN." >> >>In our letter of 16 January 2013, we indicated >>that there was no existing mechanism in the New gTLD >>program to address the GAC's concerns. To >>respond to the GAC's advice and the concerns raised by >>others in the community, staff was asked to >>develop possible mechanisms to transform applicant >>commitments (either as set forth within their >>applications or arising from early warning discussions >>between applicants and governments) into >>contractually binding and enforceable obligations. The Board >>considered the staff proposals at the Board >>Workshop in Los Angeles on 31 January 2013 - 2 February >>2013. >> >>I am happy to report that ICANN has undertaken >>specific steps to address this item of GAC advice. On 1 >>February 2013, the New gTLD Program Committee >>adopted a resolution directing ICANN's President and >>CEO to seek public comment on a proposed >>"Public Interest Commitments" specification ("PIC Spec") to >>be added to each new gTLD registry agreement. >> >>(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-01feb13… >>) >> >>On 5 February 2013, ICANN opened a public >>comment forum seeking comment on a revised draft of the >>New gTLD Registry Agreement that includes the new PIC Spec. >> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/publiccomment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm ) >> >> >>"Public Interest Commitments" >> >>The proposed PIC Spec is a mechanism by which >>applicants may incorporate additional commitments into >>their Registry Agreements. As proposed, the >>PIC Spec has one mandatory provision and two optional >>provisions. It would require the Registry >>Operator to use only those registrars that sign onto the 2013 >>Registrar Accreditation Agreement. It would >>also allow the Registry Operator to contractually agree to >>follow the commitments made in certain sections >>of its application for the gTLD (the specific sections to be >>selected by the Registry Operator). Finally, >>it would allow the Registry Operator to identify specific >>additional commitments - which could be even >>broader than those undertaken in the application - that it >>will follow in the operation of the registry. >> >>Each PIC Spec completed by an applicant would >>be posted for public review in advance of the Beijing >>meeting. Once finalized, the relevant PIC >>Spec would be attached to the relevant Registry Agreement. The >>Registry Agreement would not be signed until the PIC Spec is completed. >> >> >>Enforcement >> >>The commitment to use only Registrars that have >>signed the new RAA will be enforceable through the >>regular contractual compliance process within >>ICANN. The additional commitments would primarily be >>enforceable by third parties through a revised >>Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process. >> >>Once the Registry Agreement is in operation, >>third parties who suffer actual harm as a result of the Registry >>Operator's alleged noncompliance with the >>additional commitments or restrictions contained in the PIC >>Spec would have standing to proceed to dispute >>resolution. This dispute resolution procedure would be >>made part of the existing Registry Restriction >>Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) and >>Trademark PDDRP http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb . >> >>First, there would be a mandatory conciliation >>phase during which the third party and the Registry Operator >>are expected to try to informally resolve the >>issue. If the issue cannot be resolved, the third party >>complainant will then proceed to a Public >>Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PIC-DRP) >>operated by a dispute resolution provider. >> >>If the provider issues findings and >>recommendations that the Registry Operator is violating the PIC Spec, >>the matter would then proceed to ICANN's >>Contractual Compliance for enforcement. >> >> >>Timeframe >> >>As noted above, the PIC Spec and other proposed >>revisions to the Registry Agreement were posted for >>public comment on 5 February 2013. Applicants >>were also invited to optionally designate which parts of >>their application and which additional promises >>they will agree to have included in their registry agreement. >> >>Applicants' PICs are due on 5 March 2013, and >>will be publicly posted for public and GAC review. >> >>I hope that you find the above responsive to >>the GAC's request for a written briefing on enforcing applicant >>commitments and that it addresses the GAC's advice on this subject. >> >>Best regards, >>Stephen D. Crocker, >>Chair, ICANN Board

1 0

Fwd: Letter from ICANN Board to GAC on Enforcing new gTLD applicant commitments
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2013

Feb. 13, 2013

>Dear Heather, > >On behalf of the Board, I write to follow up on >our commitment in our letter of 16 January 2013, to provide >a report on our efforts to address one item of >advice contained in the GAC Toronto Communiqué. > >Background > >In its Toronto Communiqué, the GAC requested a >written briefing from the ICANN Board on "how >ICANN will ensure that any commitments made by >[New gTLD] applicants, in their applications or as a >result of any subsequent changes, will be >overseen and enforced by ICANN." The GAC advised the Board >that, "it is necessary for all of these >statements of commitment and objectives to be transformed into >binding contractual commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN." > >In our letter of 16 January 2013, we indicated >that there was no existing mechanism in the New gTLD >program to address the GAC's concerns. To >respond to the GAC's advice and the concerns raised by >others in the community, staff was asked to >develop possible mechanisms to transform applicant >commitments (either as set forth within their >applications or arising from early warning discussions >between applicants and governments) into >contractually binding and enforceable obligations. The Board >considered the staff proposals at the Board >Workshop in Los Angeles on 31 January 2013 - 2 February >2013. > >I am happy to report that ICANN has undertaken >specific steps to address this item of GAC advice. On 1 >February 2013, the New gTLD Program Committee >adopted a resolution directing ICANN's President and >CEO to seek public comment on a proposed "Public >Interest Commitments" specification ("PIC Spec") to >be added to each new gTLD registry agreement. > >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-01feb13… >) > >On 5 February 2013, ICANN opened a public >comment forum seeking comment on a revised draft of the >New gTLD Registry Agreement that includes the new PIC Spec. > (http://www.icann.org/en/news/publiccomment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm ) > > >"Public Interest Commitments" > >The proposed PIC Spec is a mechanism by which >applicants may incorporate additional commitments into >their Registry Agreements. As proposed, the PIC >Spec has one mandatory provision and two optional >provisions. It would require the Registry >Operator to use only those registrars that sign onto the 2013 >Registrar Accreditation Agreement. It would >also allow the Registry Operator to contractually agree to >follow the commitments made in certain sections >of its application for the gTLD (the specific sections to be >selected by the Registry Operator). Finally, it >would allow the Registry Operator to identify specific >additional commitments - which could be even >broader than those undertaken in the application - that it >will follow in the operation of the registry. > >Each PIC Spec completed by an applicant would be >posted for public review in advance of the Beijing >meeting. Once finalized, the relevant PIC Spec >would be attached to the relevant Registry Agreement. The >Registry Agreement would not be signed until the PIC Spec is completed. > > >Enforcement > >The commitment to use only Registrars that have >signed the new RAA will be enforceable through the >regular contractual compliance process within >ICANN. The additional commitments would primarily be >enforceable by third parties through a revised >Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process. > >Once the Registry Agreement is in operation, >third parties who suffer actual harm as a result of the Registry >Operator's alleged noncompliance with the >additional commitments or restrictions contained in the PIC >Spec would have standing to proceed to dispute >resolution. This dispute resolution procedure would be >made part of the existing Registry Restriction >Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) and >Trademark PDDRP http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb . > >First, there would be a mandatory conciliation >phase during which the third party and the Registry Operator >are expected to try to informally resolve the >issue. If the issue cannot be resolved, the third party >complainant will then proceed to a Public >Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PIC-DRP) >operated by a dispute resolution provider. > >If the provider issues findings and >recommendations that the Registry Operator is violating the PIC Spec, >the matter would then proceed to ICANN's >Contractual Compliance for enforcement. > > >Timeframe > >As noted above, the PIC Spec and other proposed >revisions to the Registry Agreement were posted for >public comment on 5 February 2013. Applicants >were also invited to optionally designate which parts of >their application and which additional promises >they will agree to have included in their registry agreement. > >Applicants' PICs are due on 5 March 2013, and >will be publicly posted for public and GAC review. > >I hope that you find the above responsive to the >GAC's request for a written briefing on enforcing applicant >commitments and that it addresses the GAC's advice on this subject. > >Best regards, >Stephen D. Crocker, >Chair, ICANN Board >

1 0

Fwd: Registrar SG Input on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 11, 2013

Feb. 11, 2013

Perhaps of interest. Pretty strong Registrar support for universal thick whois. Alan

2 1

US Introduces New Cyber Security Bill in Senate
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 9, 2013

Feb. 9, 2013

Dear All, The US Senate has introduced a new Cybersecurity Bill through Senators John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Tom Carper, incoming Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where they made a Press Release, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_i… To see the Bill, visit: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540… This is interesting and relevant as far as it pertains to critical information infrastructure that the US considers to be part of the US Infrastructure. Whilst the models point to public private collaboration which makes sense because it is the private sector that controls much of the infrastructure anyway except in situations where if there were a State of Emergency and the rights to control/access infrastructure by the State and it has its challenges. This Bill affects ICANN's operations as well hence the relevance. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

4 5

Re: [ALAC] Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Sébastien Bachollet Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

And the resolution of the last Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee (2nd February 2013) About "Closed Generic" Top-Level Domains http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02feb13 -en.htm With a comment period open from yesterday to the 7th of March http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> Le 05/02/13 06:35, « Tijani BEN JEMAA » <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> a écrit : >Thank you Alan. It's indeed very interesting > > > > > >My address tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org is not working properly any more. >Please >use one of the 2 following addresses: tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn or >tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-- >---- > >Tijani BEN JEMAA > >Executive Director > >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > >Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > >Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > >Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-- >---- > > > > > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg >Envoyé : mardi 5 février 2013 15:01 >À : ALAC Working List >Objet : [ALAC] Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program >Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013. > > > > From Bruce Tonkin to GNSO COuncil - very interesting. Alan > > > > > >>The full minutes for the 10 Jan 2013 meeting are now available at: > >> > >>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-10jan13 > >>-en.htm > >> > >>I have also attached the briefing documents used at that meeting. > >> > >>Note that the new gTLD committee also met during the Board workshop on > >>1-2 Feb, so expect a preliminary report soon. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(A >LAC)

2 1

FW: [icann-board] 1 February 2013 Approved Resolutions from the New gTLD Program Committee
by Sébastien Bachollet Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

For information The resolutions from the first of the New gTLD Program Committee's meetings during the workshop, held on 1 February 2013, will be available shortly at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-01feb13- en.htm. Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

1 0

Resolutions from the ICANN Board meeting on Saturday 2 Feb 2013
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

See particularly items e of the consent agenda and a of the main agenda. - adding David Olive, as Vice President, Policy Development Support, as an Officer of the company - creating a Multi-Stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group to look at approach going forward for ICANN public meetings (chaired by Sébastien Bachollet ) Alan >From: >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02feb13-en.htm > >Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > > >2 February 2013 > > > 1. Consent Agenda: > > a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >Resolved (2013.02.02.01), the Board approves the >minutes of the 20 December 2012 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board. > > > b. Registry Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments > >Whereas, The ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section >5.3) state, "Each [GNSO] Stakeholder Group shall >maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." > >Whereas, the GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group >(RySG) has alerted ICANN Staff and the Board to >a set of changes to its Charter including >expanding the activities of its internal >Observers Group, simplifying the process for >assessment of annual dues and adding the >immediate past Chair of the RySG to its Executive Committee. > >Whereas, the community had the opportunity to >review and comment on the RySG Charter >amendments and there were no objections to the changes. > >Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee >recommends the Board approve the RySG Charter changes as presented. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.02) the proposed amendments >to the Registry Stakeholder Group Charter are approved by the Board. > > > c. Southern California Office Space Lease > >Whereas, ICANN's current lease in Los Angeles expires 30 June 2022. > >Whereas, ICANN's primary operations and staff >are located in the greater Los Angeles area. > >Whereas, current and future office space needs >for primary operations will be at least 35,000 square feet. > >Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has >recommended that the Board approve this resolution. > >RESOLUTION 2013.02.02.04 REDACTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 2013.02.02.03 > >Resolved (2013.02.02.04), the Board approves the >redaction of the details of Resolution >(2013.02.02.03), and corresponding rationale >pending completion of negotiations. > > > d. Engagement of Independent Auditor > >Whereas, Article XVI of the ICANN Bylaws >(http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm) >requires that after the end of the fiscal year, >the books of ICANN must be audited by certified >public accountants, which shall be appointed by the Board. > >Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has discussed >the engagement of the independent auditor for >the fiscal year ending 30 June 2013, and has >recommended that the Board engage Moss Adams LLP. > >Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has >recommended that the Board direct the President >and CEO or his designees to negotiate and >execute a professional services agreement with Moss Adams. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.05), the Board authorizes >the President and CEO to engage Moss Adams LLP >as the auditors for the financial statements for >the fiscal year ending 30 June 2013. > > > e. Officer Appointment and related document revision > >Resolved (2013.02.02.06), David Olive is elected >as an Officer of ICANN with the title of Vice >President, Policy Development Support. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.07), Paragraph 4 of ICANN's >Contracting and Disbursement Policy shall be >revised to read as follows: ICANN Officers >include: (i) President and Chief Executive >Officer (CEO); (ii) Chief Operating Officer >(COO); (iii) Chief Financial Officer (CFO); (iv) >General Counsel and Secretary; and (v) Vice >President, Policy Development Support. > > >2. Main Agenda: > >a. Multi-Stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group > >Whereas, ICANN has committed to identifying >ICANN Meeting locations two years in advance. > >Whereas, after consideration that adoption of a >prior Consolidated Meetings Strategy proposal >was not timely, the Public Participation >Committee (PPC) initiated work to create a >working group to address the meeting location strategy. > >Whereas, the PPC has developed a proposed >charter for a multistakeholder Meetings Strategy >Working Group (MSWG) and recommends that the >Board adopt the charter and approve the creation of the MSWG. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.08), the Board approves of >the creation of the MSWG and adopts the Charter >of the MSWG. The MSWG is expected to provide its >report to the Board no later than ICANN's 2013 Annual General Meeting. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.09), the original members >of the MSWG from the ICANN Board are: Sébastien >Bachollet, Chair and Chris Disspain. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.10), the MSWG, working with >the PPC, is directed to proceed with the >identification of community members pursuant to >the Charter. Community member appointments do >not require the approval of the full Board. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.11), the President and CEO >is directed to provide the MSWG with the staff >support necessary to enable the MSWG to undertake and complete its work.

2 1

Board meeting: 2 February 2013
by Sébastien Bachollet Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

Last Board resolutions http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02feb13-en.htm Please have a specific look at the resolution about Multi-Stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02feb13-en.htm#2. a Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

2 1

New gTLD Program Committee resolution on "closed generic" strings
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

Note that the Public Comment closes on March 7 and does not seem to have a reply period. Alan http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be adopted corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider this issue. In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to proposed objective criteria for: - classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., how to determine whether a string is generic, and - determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration policies. The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action to be taken. At its 2 February 2013 meeting, the Committee passed the following resolution: Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee has received correspondence from the community addressing "closed generic" TLDs and understands that members of the community term a "closed generic" TLD as a TLD string that is a generic term and is proposed to be operated by a participant exclusively for its own benefit. Whereas, ICANN implemented the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) policy recommendations on the "Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains", and within those policy recommendations there is no specific policy regarding "closed generic" top-level domains (TLDs). Whereas, members of the community have expressed concerns regarding applications for "closed generic" TLDs. Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee considers that it is important to understand all views and potential ramifications relating to 'closed generic' TLDs. Resolved (2013.02.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to open a 30-day public comment forum on this topic, which should include a call for identification of proposed objective criteria to classify applied-for TLDs as "closed generic" TLDs. Resolved (2013.02.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to, concurrently with the opening of the public comment forum, request the GNSO to provide guidance on the issue of "closed generic" TLDs if the GNSO wishes to provide such guidance. Guidance on this issue is requested to be provided by the close of the public comment forum. Resolved (2013.02.02.NG03), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to: - Summarize and analyze all comments submitted in the public comment forum. - Review materials supporting the policy development process resulting in the GNSO policy recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains and provide analysis of any discussions relating to the limitations on potential new gTLDs. - Analyze the feasibility of objectively classifying applied for TLDs as "closed generic" TLDs. - Provide an analysis as to whether the public interest and principles of international law are served by adopting a clear approach regarding 'closed generic' gTLDs. - Provide a report to the New gTLD Program Committee informed by the comments received and analysis conducted, including alternatives to addressing this issue.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Evan Leibovitch Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

Yes, interesting. On closed generics, isn't their discussion like, maybe, five years too late? Sure the AG indicates the process can be changed after-the-fact, but this (the private registrability od generic words) is a MAJOR point of philosophy, and both IMO too late to change and massively subject to lawsuits if it's attempted. And then there's this gem: *"Many of the Board members will be uncomfortable approving TLDs that are seen as a land grab, as opposed to expansion of the DNS"* The suggestion that a distinction ought to (or even can) be drawn between the two concepts, at this time, is ... charming. - Evan

1 0