October 2009 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Organizational Review reports
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 7, 2009

Oct. 7, 2009

For information Three Organizational Review reports have just been published for public comments and will be presented in Seoul; they are: The NomCom review WG draft report (public comment box at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#nomcom-review-2009) - the report presents the draft conclusions of the WG, and asks specific inputs on the key issue of the size and composition of the Committee. Public comments sent during the first two weeks of the consultation will be particularly appreciated because the WG expects to progress significantly in Seoul towards the finalization of the report. The Board review WG draft final report (public comment box at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#board-review-2009) - the report has concluded on all issues remaining outstanding in Sydney, and will be finalized after this very last round of consultation with the community. The SSAC review draft report (public comment box at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssac-review-2009) - the report presents the draft conclusions of the WG, and will be finalized after public comments.

1 0

Member call notes
by BC Secretariat Oct. 7, 2009

Oct. 7, 2009

Dear Members The notes of the member call on Monday 5 October can be found at the website www.bizconst.org I am aware that some members may have joined the call after discussions had started. Please let me know if your name needs to be added to the attendance list Best wishes Gary

1 0

gTLD Registry Price Increase - Proposed Changes in new DAG
by Michael D. Palage Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Hello All: ICANN staff continues to make progress toward a final DAG, and their continued efforts should acknowledged. There is a lot to digest in this latest DAG, however, one thing did jump out at me that I wanted to raise with the broader constituency. Under the current unsponsored registry agreements, registries are required to provide registrants six months notice prior to raising price. This six month notice/safeguard was first proposed in connection the .COM registry agreement. It appears that DAG 3.0 is proposing to change this requirement to 30 days notice in connection with "new" registrations and 180 days notice for "existing" registrations. (See full text below) The explanatory memorandum to the DAG states "This provision was modified to shorten the notification period for price increases related to initial registrations as suggested by community comments." There are two questions which I think we need to raise with staff. First, can ICANN staff point to the community comments that they reference in connection with initial/new registrations. I was not aware of these comments and could not find any reference to them after conducting a quick search this morning. However, given the sheer volume of public comments it is possible that I missed this comment(s). Does anyone else recall this proposed change; George this is an issue which you always closely. Second, can anyone point to the basis for staff's proposed change in connection with existing registration pricing. Given that this safeguard was a hot topic in connection with the .COM registry agreement, I think it would benefit the community to have a broader discussion on this topic, and to understand the underlying basis of ICANN Staff recommendation. Is this something that the broader membership agrees with? Best regards, Michael D. Palage 2.10 Pricing for Registry Services. Except as set forth in this Section 2.10, Registry Operator shall provide each ICANN accredited registrar that has executed Registry Operator's registry registrar agreement advance notice of any price increase [(net of refunds, rebates, discounts, product tying or other programs)] of no less than thirty (30) calendar days with respect to initial domain name registrations and one hundred eighty (180) calendar days with respect to renewal of domain name registrations, and shall offer registrars the option to obtain domain name registration renewals at the current price (i.e. the price in place prior to any noticed increase) for periods of one to ten years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten years. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to renewal of domain name registrations, Registry Operator need only provide thirty (30) calendar days notice of any price increase if the resulting price is less than or equal to a price for which Registry Operator provided notice within that past twelve (12) months, and need not provide any notice of any price increase for the imposition of the Variable Registry-Level Fee set forth in Section 6.3. [Registry Operator shall offer all domain registration renewals at the same price, unless the registrant agrees to a higher price at the time of the initial registration of the domain name following clear and conspicuous disclosure of such renewal price by Registry Operator.] Registry Operator shall provide public querybased DNS lookup service for the TLD at its sole expense.

2 1

FW: [council] Invitation to attend ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Fyi. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 2:09 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Invitation to attend ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC Invitation to attend ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join (12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC). Dear Sir or Madam: You are cordially invited to participate in a ICANN Policy Update webinar. ICANNs Policy Department will be providing an update on ongoing GNSO and ccNSO Activities. Title: ICANN Policy Update Webinar When: Thursday 15 October Time: 12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC Brief Session Description: This webinar will provide update on ongoing GNSO and ccNSO activities, including an update on the restructuring of the GNSO, ongoing policy development processes and other working group activities. The duration of the webinar is one hour and will be conducted in English only at this time. The format will be presented in PowerPoint along with dial-in conference bridge for audio. There will be time at the end of the session for Q&A. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. Should we run out of time or if you have additional questions after the session, please send them via email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. Meeting Details: As space is limited, this is an invitation-only event. If you would like to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to secure your place. Please indicate which call you would like to join (12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Member call today
by BC Secretariat Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Dear members A reminder that there is a member call today: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00460.html If you need dial-in details again please contact me at the secretariat address Gary

1 0

ICANN Announces Important Milestones in Making the Internet More Accessible to All
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

IDNs DAG3 IRT http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04oct09-en.htm العربية 中文 English Français Español Русский 日本語 Deutsch Português 한국어 Italiano ICANN Announces Important Milestones in Making the Internet More Accessible to All 4 October 2009 In the past several days, ICANN has announced recent milestones regarding changes in how the Internet community will use the Internet in the near future. These important developments include the plan for deployment of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in the next few months and significant progress in developing the model for delegating new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Proposed Final Implementation Plan: IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan… ICANN is pleased to announce the public posting of the Proposed Final Implementation Plan for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. The IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is an important step at making the Internet equally accessible for everyone. It will enable the introduction of a limited number of internationalized country-code top level domain names (IDN ccTLDs). As noted by ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom, once implemented, this will be the first time that users can obtain a domain name with the entire string in characters other than ASCII (or Latin) characters, "this is one of the most exciting developments for the users of the Internet globally in years. IDNs will enable the people the world over to use domain name addresses in their own language." The process will be available to all countries and territories where the official language is based on scripts other than the Latin (extended) script. IDNs, like the Affirmation of Commitments announced last week (www.icann.org ) are another step towards making the Internet more truly global to achieve our goal of "one world, one Internet, everyone connected." The proposed final plan is scheduled for ICANN Board consideration at the ICANN meeting in Seoul, Korea, 26-30 October 2009. The proposed launch date for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is 16 November 2009. ICANN is looking forward to feedback on the final plan in the public comment forum designated for that purpose. The proposed final plan has been developed based on responses to community comments and discussions. See the latest status update at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09sep09-en.htm. Responding to Public Comment: Version 3 of New gTLD Applicant Guidebook A Work In Progress http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-3-en.htm The latest draft of the Applicant Guidebook that describes the process of applying for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) was released today. New gTLDs are expected to bring innovative services and greater choice to Internet users through increased competition and engender broad participation through the introduction of IDNs and community-based TLDs into the Domain Name System. In the last three months, the community has joined in extensive collaborative efforts on technical, intellectual property, potential for malicious conduct, and other matters, with global consultations in New York, Sydney, London, Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi. The Guidebook has been changed significantly. As indicated by ICANN Chief Operating Officer, Doug Brent, "this third version of draft guidebook represents months of outstanding effort by many in the ICANN community - working to resolve the few, challenging remaining issues. This version is being released with materials that describe how public comment has influenced the changes presented in it." In all, there are over 50 areas of change, clearly indicated in the "redline" version of the Guidebook. In addition to specific trademark protections (described below) the new Guidebook includes: •Measures to prevent or mitigate potential for malicious conduct including a proposal to create high-security zones; •Enhanced stability / security measures, requiring DNSSEC deployment and prohibiting use of wildcards; •Protecting registrants by taking step to ensure registry viability: defining a financial instrument that will ensure ongoing registry operations in the event of failure, and specifying certain pre-delegation registry tests; and •Enhanced contractual tools through the development of post-delegation dispute procedures including one to ensure that community-based TLDs adhere to their self-described purpose. Like all previous versions, this draft is posted for public comment. It has been released prior to the ICANN meeting to be held in Seoul from October 25-30. During the Seoul meeting ICANN will conduct several sessions to facilitate discussion of this version of the Applicant Guidebook and finding solutions to the outstanding issues. Information about additional events will be available on the Seoul Meeting schedule at: http://sel.icann.org/full-sched. Trademark Protection Measures – Where to next? http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gnso-consultations-reports-en.htm Specific trademark protection mechanisms are still to be decided upon by the Board. After receiving trademark protection recommendations from the Implementation Recommendation Team and others, taking extensive comment and conducting consultation with the broad community, ICANN has drafted a set of implementation recommendations related to intellectual property protections for the new gTLD program. Additional rights protection included in the Guidebook are the: •requirement to maintain a "thick" Whois database, and •specification of a post-delegation dispute procedure so that trademark holders can lodge complaints of abusive behavior against registries when merited. For other proposed rights protection mechanisms, the Board is providing the Generic Names Supporting Organization (the policy organization that developed the new gTLDs policy) with the opportunity to offer focused input on this specific area of the proposed implementation plan that is being published now. Those proposed rights protection mechanisms are: •The creation of an IP Clearinghouse, which is a database of validated trademarks to be utilized by new gTLD registry operators in implementing either an IP Claims service or Sunrise process during TLD launch; and •The creation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension process for use in clear-cut, blatant cases of trademark infringement. The community at-large may also comment on these specific issues, and of course, any other new gTLD issues through comment fora found on the new gTLD pages. The public comment period on these trademark protection solutions will be open until 22 November 2009. Please continue checking the New gTLD program webpage for updates. Prior to implementation, ICANN will work with the community to address remaining issues including: competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection. Related links New gTLD program webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Seoul meeting: http://sel.icann.org/ Media Contact: Michele Jourdan Corporate Affairs ICANN Ph: +1-310-301-5831 E: michele.jourdan(a)icann.org

1 0

two topics: thanking Gary and organization of the ICANN meetings
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 4, 2009

Oct. 4, 2009

I join others in thanking Gary Hills for his contribution to the BC and the ICANN community over the last 9 years. WOW, Gary, I didn't realize it was already nine years! Many many thanks. I have always regretted that we were not bringing you, as our secretariat to more of the face to face meetings, and appreciate that you changed your other business commitments many times to participate with us when possible ' in person'. Second topic: I would like to propose that we discuss a major change in how the meetings at ICANN are organized. Consider it a "food for thought" proposal, that means: let's discuss it, as one option, taking into consideration the changes that are upcoming as we merge into the CSG, and also have to have productive interactions with the other non contracted house. We could start with a constituency meeting on Sunday afternoon/the day before ICANN starts; hold the present Cross Constituency meeting, but spend the afternoon Tuesday in meetings and dialogue with other constituencies or the At Large; ensure that all are available to attend the full meeting of the Bd/GAC as it is now open. I think that many of our members don't actually feel that we are devoting enough time to working through positions. Face to face meetings are challenging for us, because we need to have our meetings ahead of time by phone and develop the basis for positions then. We will need to factor into our thinking that we will have to have the meeting of the two non contracted parties on site, as well, and that may eat up some of the Tuesday p.m. time. It might be an excellent idea to invite the three newly appointed non commercial reps into a small get acquainted setting, as well.

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Draft Report on Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 2, 2009

Oct. 2, 2009

Hi all, Interesting study re WHOIS proxy/privacy services. The summary: The main objective of this study was to establish baseline information to inform the community on the prevalence of the use of privacy and proxy services when registering domain names. The preliminary results from the initial coding of a random sample of two thousand four hundred domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs reveal that anywhere from approximately 15 to 25 percent are likely to have been registered using a privacy or proxy service. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:55 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Draft Report on Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-01oct09-en.htm _____ Public Comment: Draft Report on Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service 1 October 2009 ICANN, assisted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), recently completed a draft of its study of the percentage of domain names registered using a privacy or proxy service. Today, that draft report is being posted for review and comment through 6 November 2009. The findings in the report identify a percentage range of domain names that appear to have been registered using a privacy or proxy service. To inform this study, ICANN relied on a random sample of 2400 domain names drawn in March 2009 from the universe of domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs (i.e., .com, .net, .org, .biz, and .info). Community members are invited to review the draft report and its findings and comment on all aspects of the report. Document Links: The draft report can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/privacy-proxy-registration-servi… [PDF, 124K] The Process From Here: At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day public comment, from 2 October through 6 November 2009, and invites community comments on this matter. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#proxy To submit comments: privacy-proxy-study(a)icann.org To view comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/privacy-proxy-study/ Staff Responsible: William A. McKelligott _____ Sign up for <http://www.icann.org/magazine/> ICANN's Monthly Magazine This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann(a)rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free! <http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p…> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&m=26…> Manage your subscription <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=264713&act=PWHD&r=11033829&c=…>

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Expedited Registry Security Request Process Posted
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 2, 2009

Oct. 2, 2009

ICANN has announced a new process for registries to request contract exemptions, which apparently has not been discussed by anyone that is not an ICANN registry or staff. While it has good intentions arising out of the Conficker attack, and apparently necessary if registries are not to breach their contracts in some cases. But it could be abused, and must be transparent eventually if not immediately. And so they are asking for public comment now that it is implemented. Is this something the BC wants to comment on? And if so, does anyone care to lead with draft BC comments on this? Deadline is November 1. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:30 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Expedited Registry Security Request Process Posted <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01oct09-en.htm _____ Expedited Registry Security Request Process Posted 1 October 2009 Introduction The Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) is the result of a collaborative effort between ICANN and gTLD registries to develop a process for quick action in cases where gTLD registries: * inform ICANN of a present or imminent security incident to their TLD and/or the DNS and * request a contractual waiver for actions they might take or have taken to mitigate or eliminate the incident. A contractual waiver is an exemption from compliance with a specific provision of the Registry Agreement for the time period necessary to respond to the Incident. The ERSR web-based submission procedure is now available and can be accessed at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/ersr/. This new process is to be employed by gTLD registries exclusively for incidents that require immediate action by the registry in order to avoid deleterious effects to DNS stability or security. This process is not intended to replace requests that should be made through the Registry Services <http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html> Evaluation Process (RSEP). For the sake of DNS stability, this process is going into effect immediately. ICANN welcomes comments on it in order to improve its effectiveness and to ensure sufficient safeguards are in place. Comments should be made to ersr(a)icann.org and can be seen at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ersr/. The comment period will close on 1 November 2009. Background In late 2008, Internet security researchers, operating system and antivirus software vendors discovered the Conficker worm. Further, it was understood that the worm could infect millions of computers by using tens of thousands of domain names that would be auto-generated by the Conficker infection during a period of several months. The operational response to containing Conficker was for registries to preemptively block or register the domains that had been identified as targets of the worm. The response to Conficker however posed a unique contractual issue for ICANN and gTLD registries as registries are restricted in their ability to register names to themselves other than through an ICANN-accredited registrar. Additionally, a waiver of ICANN fees was appropriate. Given the severity of the Conficker threat, ICANN provided verbal approval to registries to facilitate the registrations of targeted domains and agreed to waive all fees associated with these transactions. As a result of Conficker, ICANN and the gTLD registries worked to develop a process that would enable registries to share information and take action in urgent security situations – actions that might not be covered by their Registry Agreements. ICANN then developed a draft ERSR and conducted consultations on the process with gTLD registries, the gTLD Registry Constituency and ICANN-accredited registrars that had been involved in the early stages of the community response to Conficker. The product of this community effort is the Expedited Registry Security Request. _____ Sign up for <http://www.icann.org/magazine/> ICANN's Monthly Magazine This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann(a)rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free! <http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p…> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&m=26…> Manage your subscription <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=264706&act=PWHD&r=11033829&c=…>

1 0

BC call next week
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 2, 2009

Oct. 2, 2009

Regarding part 1 of the BC call next week we plan to start the discussion with some broader principles / practicalities on these points. A few members provided personal comments already on list which has been helpful. If we can come to agreement on these, it will help inform some of the broader shaping questions raised in the new Charter. Issue 1 - the balance between doers and members What is the right balance between the number of annually elected positions and the membership size ? Today (and for the last 10 years) it is 3/41 members. Draft charter changes it to 5/41 members. The draft charter also envisages other admin committees totalling with the elected positions 13/41. Do we have one-third of the BC membership ready to step into one of these volunteer positions? What is the right balance between elected, appointed and ad hoc ? Is there sufficient motivation to be a member volunteer for mostly non-policy work? Should we scale this back ? Issue 2 - election sequencing and time for discussion Is there a hierarchy of posts in the new charter for which we would want to have sequential elections? Should we attempt to elect reps and exec comm all at the same time and make them mutually exclusive? Or should we hold the reps election, then BC chair, then each vice chair? If the latter what nomination / discussion / election period is practical? If we followed one member proposal for 2 weeks of each and assume 7 separate elections we could be conducting elections for 42 weeks! What is the right balance? Issue 3 - balance of independence As ICANN starts to offer more services what degree of independence do we want as a constituency? Do members wish to authorise the release of their private data to enable ICANN staff for instance in the future to run BC elections? Do members wish to entrust ICANN with the funds in the BC bank account? Or should the ICANN toolbox be a basket of services that the exec comm can choose from? Issues 4 - other points members wish to raise.

3 3