October 2011 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

IRTP-B -- heads up
by Mike O'Connor Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

hi all, and especially those of you who participated in the IRTP working group. there's a pretty important end-game being played out in IRTP-B. it would be helpful if those who participated in the working group would dial back in and make comments to the list. and those of you who didn't also will have an opportunity to weigh in. i'm lobbying for two changes (here's what i posted to the working-group list): > Rec #8 > > i like the idea of ensuring that the link is preserved within WHOIS output. > > but when we drafted this recommendation, our intent was to deliver the definition of the status code *within* WHOIS, not through a link to a list somewhere else. the link works fine for sophisticated consumers of WHOIS but, in my opinion, does not reach the "clarify WHOIS status codes" goal that we were striving for when we wrote this. i'd like to take up this discussion one more time. this dilution of our recommendation hasn't been sufficiently justified in my view -- certainly "technical complexity" doesn't cut it. even i, a long-dead programmer, could come up with code to do this in an afternoon, complete with lookups that scraped the definitions off the InterNIC page (so that updates would automatically flow through my code to the output). > > Rec #9 > > this one still suffers from the vagueness that we discussed on our last call. the culprit is in this phrase -- "the registrar may still be permitted or required to restrict some registration changes or transfers pursuant to the UDRP or [sic] other ICANN consensus policies or legal requirements." > > the trouble comes in the phrase "or legal requirements." *which* legal requirements? legal requirements imposed by the registrar? or *external* legal requirements? i'd be a bit more cheerful with wording like this -- "the registrar may still be permitted or required to restrict some registration changes or transfers pursuant to the UDRP, ICANN consensus policies or other external legal requirements." > > i'm not keen on allowing registrar-imposed legal requirements into this policy -- that's effectively opening the door for registrars to block just about any transfer, the prevention of which was one of the primary reasons the IRTP was instituted in the first place. i'm pretty much the only non-Registrar commenting at this point. we have a working group developing policy constraining Registrar behavior that is: chaired by a Registrar, is dominated by Registrar participants, has a Council-Liaison that's a Registrar and reports to a Council that's chaired by a Registrar. so i'm feeling a little lonely at the moment. :-) i'm forwarding a post from the Chair of the WG in which lays out the process. note that the recommendations are reversed and have different designations. Recommendation 8 in the IRTP report corresponds to RESOLVED (E) while Recommendation 9 corresponds to RESOLVED (D). sorry about that -- above my pay-grade. the main point is that we could use a few more comments from non-Registrars (both on and off the WG). thanks, mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.ie> > Date: October 17, 2011 5:26:55 AM CDT > To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B .. Proposals etc > > > Dear All > > It's great seeing some healthy discussions on the mailing list, so before jumping ahead and setting up any new calls, I'd like to encourage others to express their views on the mailing list. > > As a reminder, please note that the recommendations as resolved by the GNSO Council in relation to these two issues are as follows: > > RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation. > > RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation. > > Also note that Staff is planning to put out these proposals for community input, so even if the WG is not able to reach a common position on the proposals, individual members will have an opportunity to share their views as part of the public comment forum. > > I'm sure Staff is also reviewing these comments and will try to address these in the best way possible. > > I'd also like to remind you that an IRTP Update has been scheduled to take place at the ICANN meeting in Dakar on Thursday from 10.00 – 11.30 (see http://dakar42.icann.org/node/27007) during which you will have another opportunity to share your views. > > Regards > > Michele > > > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions ♞ > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > ICANN Accredited Registrar > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.biz > http://mneylon.tel > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > US: 213-233-1612 > UK: 0844 484 9361 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

BC Members Travelling to Dakar: What to Expect Upon Arrival
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

Dear BC Members, Below is what to expect upon your arrival to Dakar. 1) Upon landing, please see the person holding an "ICANN 42 Dakar" sign, where they will re-direct you to go to a separate bus from the rest of the group. 2) The bus will then take you to a separate holding facility where you will be processed for your passport, visa, and etc. 3) After you have been processed, you will then need to complete a form indicating which hotel the shuttle bus will drop you off. 4) If you brought any luggage, they will escort you back to the main airport where you will collect your luggage. 5) After you've collected your luggage, you will then be escorted to your shuttle bus to take you to your hotel. Safe travels!! -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

2 1

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Dakar 26 October 2011‏
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please find the*Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Dakar 26 October 2011. *http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26oct11-en.htm Also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+October+2… This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 14:00 UTC <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Publi…> Coordinated Universal Time: 14:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Dakar, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, 23:00 Tokyo Thursday 27 October 01:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who will be absent. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. *Refer to:* *http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26967 14:00- 15:00 GNSO Council Public Forum. * Presentations by Stakeholder and Constituency Group leaders. * gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group - David Maher * Registrar Stakeholder Group - Mason Cole * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – ·Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC). – Debbie Hughes * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) – * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) - *Break 15:30* *_Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) _*1.1 Roll Call*_ _* 1.2 Updated statement of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: •6 October minutes <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12194.html>–will be approved on 24 October 2011. *_ Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (10 minutes)_* Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 6(10 – PEDNR, PDP-WT, OSC, GCOT, CSG Removed, IRTP- C added) • Other activities: 10 (9 –Thick Whois added) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 –RAA Removed, RC-IOC added). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2– no change). 2.2 Open microphone * _Item 3: Open Council Meeting Drafting Team (15 minutes)_* Following the Singapore meeting, a GNSO Drafting Team was formed to work on possible enhancements to the format of the GNSO Council's Open Meetings. Today's meeting is the first since the formation of this DT. As an introduction to the meeting, the DT would like to present some of its suggested enhancements and receive feedback on them. 3.1 Update from DT (Adrian Kinderis) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Next steps 3.4 Open microphone *_Item 4: Amendments to RAA (15 minutes)_*** In its ongoing work on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), and more specifically to identify potential amendments to the RAA, the Council is considering a motion to approve an amended process to develop a new form of RAA termed "process B". Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+… This motion was deferred from the October 6, 2011 meeting. 4.1 Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote 4.4 Open microphone *_Item 5: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (15 minutes)_*** As part of the GNSO improvements, the PPSC's PDP WT has produced a final report on how the GNSO's policy develop process should be handled. Refer to PDP-WT Final Report This report has been put out for public comment and is now being presented to the Council for approval. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+… This motion was deferred from the October 6, 2011 meeting. 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote 5.4 Open microphone *_Item 6: Cross Community WG Drafting Team (15 minutes)_*** In order to identify exactly how the GNSO should interact with, or participate in, Cross Community efforts, a drafting team has been examining how to best conduct these joint activities. The GNSO Council approved the team's charter on October 6. Today, the team is delivering its first status report. Link to report 6.1 Update from DT (Jonathan Robinson) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps 6.4 Open microphone * _Item 7: Geo regions WG (15 minutes)_* The Geo Regions WG is currently drafting its final report and plans to produce it early next year. The GNSO Council will be able to comment the report at that time. A draft document is currently the subject of a public comment forum:http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/geo-regions-draft-final-report…. This is a discussion item to update the Council on this work, and also to determine if the current Council reps to the WG are able to continue in this role. The current reps are Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil. As Olga will no longer sit on the GNSO Council after the Dakar meeting, she may wish to ask the Council for another rep. 7.1 Update from Staff (Rob Hoggarth) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Rep choices 7.4 Open microphone *_Item 8 Thanks to outgoing Councilors_* *_Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes)_* *BREAK* _ *18:00 - 18:30 New Council convenes*_ *_Item 1. Seating of new Council_* 1.1 Roll call 1.2 Statements of interest *_Item 2 Vote for GNSO Council chair_* One nomination: Stéphane van Gelder Vote by show of hands *Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)* 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. *Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (**GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4 <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>**) * 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 07:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dakar, Senegal UTC 14:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 15:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 19:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 23:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places seehttp://www.timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/> -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Framework of Interpretation Working Group – Interim Report
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm Framework of Interpretation Working Group – Interim Report Comment Period Deadlines^(*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/foiwg-interim-report-12oct11-en.htm> *Open Date:* 12 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:foiwg-interim-report@icann.org> *Close Date:* 1 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/foiwg-interim-report/> *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* The Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) is seeking public comment on Interim Report on the first topic it has addressed: obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement Working Group (DRDWG) identified the following issues with the topic of "consent": /"The Interpretation of consent (communication that the transfer is agreed), by IANA's own admission, is highly variable depending on a number of factors including culture and the immediate physical security of the ccTLD manager. This includes interpreting a failure to reply to an IANA email as consent in certain cases of re-delegations where the current manager has stated he does not support the request."/ The FOIWG identified the applicable polices and procedure statements and analysed all past cases of ccTLD re-delegations researching the stated consent in each instance. Based on this analysis the FOIWG identified the issues in the context of the applicable policies. These issues were further analysed to identify any issues arising from this analysis. Based on this analysis the FOIWG developed draft recommendations. To be most helpful input and feed-back from the community is sought with respect to the following questions: 1. Is the approach used by the FOIWG satisfactory? 2. Is the documentation that was analyzed to identify issues comprehensive? 3. Do the issues identified by the FOIWG for this topic capture the major problems associated with the topic? If not, what is missing? 4. Are the proposed guidelines effective solutions to the issues that were identified? 5. Are the recommendations effective in addressing the concerns raised in the final report of the DRDWG regarding this topic? *Section II: Background* The FOIWG was created by the ccNSO Council following the recommendations of the Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group (DRDWG): */Recommendation 2: Delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs/* /The DRDWG recommends that, as a first step, the ccNSO Council undertakes the development of a “Framework of Interpretation” for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretations of the current policies, guidelines and procedures relating to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs./ /The results of the use of such a Framework of Interpretation should be formally monitored and evaluated by the ccNSO Council after a pre-determined period. If the results of this evaluation indicate that the Framework of Interpretation failed to provide logical and predictable outcomes in ICANN decision making, the ccNSO Council should then launch PDPs on the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs./ The charter of the FOIWG was adopted by the ccNSO Council at its meeting on 16 March 2011 and appointed as its chair Keith Davidson of .NZ (former Chair of the DRDWG). In June 2011 the charter was updated to reflect the participation of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The charter and the list of participants of the working group can be found athttp://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm) The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current policies and guidelines pertaining to the delegation and redelegation of ccTLD’s. The scope of the FOIWG also clearly specifies that: * Any proposal to amend, update or change the Policy Statements is outside the scope of the FOIWG. * The IANA functions contract between the US Government and ICANN, including any contract implementation issues or procedures relating to it, are outside the scope of the FOIWG. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* _Documents posted for comment_: The Interim Report is posted here:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/interim-report-consent-final-12oc…, 1.63 MB] _Additional Resources_: Further information on the work of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group is available at:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm. *Section IV: Additional Information* The Interim Report addresses the first of the following topics the FOIWG identified which will be considered individually and in the order presented: * Obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests * Obtaining and documenting support for delegation and re-delegation requests from Significantly Interested Parties (sometimes referred to as Local Internet Community or LIC). * Developing recommendations for un-consented re-delegations * Developing a comprehensive glossary of the terms used for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. * Developing recommendations for IANA reports on delegation and re-delegation. *Staff Contact:* Bart Boswinkel *Email:* bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Framework%20of%20Interpretation%20Working%20Group%20%E2%80%93%20Interim%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies Participation in the New gTLD Program
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13oct11-en.htm Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies Participation in the New gTLD Program Comment Period Deadlines^(*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/jas-final-report-13oct11-en.htm> *Open Date:* 13 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:jas-final-report@icann.org> *Close Date:* 16 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/jas-final-report/> *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* A message from the JAS WG: Public comment is requested concerning theJoint Applicant Support*Final Report* <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf>[PDF, 503 KB] which deals with a very important issue:/How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?/Comments will be received until December 16 2011. The Final Report is the last step of the work done by the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). The group is represented by ICANN community members from around the world that have been working together on this initiative since April 2010. The Report offers recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries under the New gTLD Program. The Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by ALAC and the GNSO, the chartering organizations. Translations of theFinal Report <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf>[PDF, 503 KB]: * Español <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-es.pdf>[PDF, 513 KB] * Français <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-fr.pdf>[PDF, 570 KB] *Section II: Background* Below are some basic aspects of this work. /This proposal is currently under consideration by ICANN community, Board and Staff. A Program is under development and further details will be made available on ICANN's website to the general public./ The JAS WG was formed following aResolution <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm>from ICANN Board of Directors in Nairobi, on March 2010 that asked ICANN's stakeholder community/"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."/ 1. What is this all about? What is a Final Report? The Final Report is a document produced by the JAS WG that offers recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries. The Final Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by the GNSO and ALAC, the chartering organizations. This initiative is related to the New gTLD Program, which in the near future will allow entities from around the world to apply for a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD). The applicants passing the evaluation process will sign a contract with ICANN and run a Registry. 2. Who is being considered to receive support? Once the new gTLD applicant interested in receiving support has demonstrated "service to the public interest," "financial capabilities and need," one or more of the following characteristics apply: * Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities; * Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited; * Operation in a developing economy in a manner that provides genuine local social benefit; * Advocated by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations' social service mission(s); and * Operation by a local entrepreneur(s), providing demonstrable social benefit in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult. The Final Report also recommends that it instead use the internationally agreed-upon UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs list: * Least Developed Countries: category 199; * Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432; * Small Island Developing States: category 722; * Indigenous Peoples, as described in Article 1 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.All applicants will be expected give a self-declaration that they are eligible to receive support under these criteria. 3. Who does NOT qualify for support? According to the JAS WG, the application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: * An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as a "dot-brand"); * A governmental or para-statal institution; * A gTLD string that is a geographic name or is based on one; * Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are bankrupt or under bankruptcy protection; * Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are the subject of litigation or criminal investigation; * Incapable of meeting any of the Applicant Guidebook's due diligence procedures. 4. Who benefits from this? Why is it important? We all benefit from this initiative. The Internet belongs to all as well as the responsibility to look into effective ways to reduce the Digital Divide, in this particular case, by delivering a sustainable and critical support for applicants from developing economies and looking for a solution not only at the application phase but also through to the initial years of these new Registry operators. It is important because the Internet is a virtual real estate that belongs to everyone. Entities from around the world should be able to increase their participation in the top-level expansion. The Working Group also stresses it is important not only to increase participation from developing economies, but also to increase the likelihood of success by these new participants that will be delivering Domain Name Services (DNS). The current New gTLD Program, as designed, has an evaluation (and several other fees) that are considered high for a significant number of potential participants from around the world. Besides the issue of high fees, the program is in English only and has an evaluation process with criteria and requirements that are quite complex to navigate. 5. What kind of assistance in being considered? The Final Report proposes a full array of financial and non-financial support to be offered to applicants that meet the established criteria. The support should be available in the first and all subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. Currently ICANN has launched an online work space dedicated to connect potential applicants from developing regions who wish to apply for a New gTLD in their community with organizations who wish to offer either financial or non-financial assistance. See details on how this space works here:http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support 6. Who is part of this Working Group? The JAS WG is comprised of highly respected and experienced volunteers from the Supporting Organization and the Advisory Committee. This all-volunteer group teleconferences twice each week, and works through a Wiki and mailing lists. These active contributors are located in Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, North America and the Caribbean. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* Relevant Resolutions and previous Public Comment Forum: * Information about the New gTLD Program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> * http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20 * http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.2 * http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct10-en.htm * http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201004 * First Milestone Report Public Forum <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201012-en.htm#jas-mil…> * http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/second-milestone-report-10jun11-en.h… Archive regarding the WG activities: * E-mail:soac-newgtldapsup-wg@icann.org <mailto:soac-newgtldapsup-wg@icann.org> * Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Sup… *Section IV: Additional Information* The JAS WG will hold a session during the upcomingICANN Dakar Meeting <http://dakar42.icann.org/full-schedule>to both explain the Final Report and receive additional community feedback. This session will have remote participation for the people not able to attend in person. The JAS WG recently held a webinar about the Final Report. The webinar has been recorded and is available in English, French and Spanish. See recordingshere <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep>. *Staff Contact:* Karla Valente *Email:* karla.valente(a)icann.org <mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Work%20Continues%20to%20Increase%20Developing%20Economies%20Participation%20in%20the%20New%20gTLD%20Program%20public%20comment%20period> -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: ICANN FY11 Financials – Open, Transparent and CLEAN!
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-13oct11-en.htm ICANN FY11 Financials – Open, Transparent and CLEAN! 13 October 2011 For the 12^th straight year, ICANN has received an unqualified "clean" opinion from the independent auditors, Moss Adams LLP. We have posted theresults <http://www.icann.org/en/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun11-en.pdf>[PDF, 821 KB] and invite you to take a transparent peek into our audited FY11 financials. "Unqualified" means that the auditors have not identified any matter that would require them to alter the extent of the "clean" opinion they are giving on ICANN's financial statements. ANNOUNCEMENT Title: Audited Financial Statements Posted ICANN's FY11 Audited Financials are nowposted <http://www.icann.org/en/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun11-en.pdf>[PDF, 821 KB] and are available for review by the community. In accordance with Article XVI of ICANN's by-laws, the audited financial statements are to be posted by the end of October. For the 12^th straight year, ICANN has received an unqualified "clean" opinion from ICANN's independent auditors, Moss Adams LLP, the 11^th largest accounting firm in the United States. The Community is invited to review ICANN's audited financials and to provide commentaries and/or questions. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17oct11-en.htm RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument Comment Period Deadlines^(*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/rysg-proposal-cof-17oct11-en.htm> *Open Date:* 17 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:rysg-proposal-cof@icann.org> *Close Date:* 2 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/rysg-proposal-cof/> *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* ICANN received from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) a proposal for Establishment of a Continued Operations Fund (COF). This proposal is accompanied by an addendum (Proposed Continuing Operations Instrument) produced by the Afilias and PIR, supported by some other registries, registry applicants and other interested parties. * The RySG proposal can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-21jul11-en.pdf[P…, 71 KB] * The Addendum can be found here:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-addendum-01…, 119 KB] The RySG proposal offers an alternative approach to the existing Continuing Operations Instrument that is part of the New gTLD Program. The current model proposed by ICANN is outlined in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular see Question 50 of applicant questions evaluation criteria attachment and the spec 8 of the Registry Agreement. Respondents to the public comment that wish to learn more about this topic are also encouraged to read the gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clea…, 747 KB]) and the recently posted Emergency Back-End Registry Operator Request for Information (EBERO RFI):http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-14sep11-en.htm Essentially, the existing Continuing Operations Instrument requires each new gTLD to obtain a letter of credit that will pay for the maintenance of five critical registry functions in the event of a registry failure. The proposed Continuing Operations Fund mechanism is essentially an insurance pool where each registry contributes to a fund -- the contribution to a pooled risk fund would be less than the letter of credit (perhaps significantly less). Here are some questions that public comment responders to be considered regarding the RySG alternative proposal as well as the existing continuing instrument model offered by ICANN. To be most effective, comments should identify the question addressed, or identify if a separate issue is addressed. 1. Considering ICANN's Mission, what is the appropriate role for ICANN to create a fund or act as an insurer? Under which circumstances? * Can the same end be accomplished through a third party? * Will an insurance company underwrite this? 2. The current COI model outlined on the Applicant Guidebook (see:http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/agb) is designed to provide some safeguards regardless of the number of gTLD registries that fail. For the existing COI model: * There will be an incentive to underestimate the projected size of the new registry, and therefore lower the cost of the COI to below what it should be to protect registrants. How could this be addressed? For the COF model: * Who should determine how much reserve must be set aside? * What criteria should be used to ensure sufficient funding and a mechanism to provide registrant protections? 3. In the estimates shown in the addendum (Proposed Continuity Operations Instrument), what are the assumptions can be made in creating the basis for the proposed fund? 4. How should the both the existing COI model and the newly proposed COF model ensure that it appropriately meets the needs of multiple registries sizes from small to large? 5. Will the allocation of costs need to be adjusted over time if new registries enter the pool after the target balance is achieved? How can this account for some level of predictability and fairness for all registries? 6. What appropriate level of internal resources should ICANN have for collections, tracking of deposits and outlays from the fund? 7. What are the foreseeable challenges to move funds in timely manner to various parties as required responding to emergency situations? *Section II: Background* This assurance of continuing operations through some mechanism -- whether it is the current continuity operations instrument or the newly proposed continuing operations fund -- is an important issue because it provides a mechanism to protect registrants in the event of a registry failure. ICANN's main goal is a registrant protection through the implementation of a transition process that occurs in a secure, stable and reliable manner, minimizing impact not only to gTLD registrants, but also to gTLD users. This process should provide transparency to all parties involved in the transition. The continuity operations instrument provides the one fully performed and in place registrant protection mechanism before the TLD is delegated. Additional important background information is furnished in the gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clea…, 747 KB]). Commenters should read that. A mechanism similar to the proposed continuing operations fund was considered at one time. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* * New gTLD Registry Agreement (see spec 8):http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agreement-specs-clean-19sep11-e…, 4.5 MB] * Module 2 of the Applicant Guidebook:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-questions-cri…, 725 KB] andhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-procedures-clean-19s…, 919 KB] * gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-pro…, 747 KB] * New gTLD Program:http://newgtlds.icann.org/ *Section IV: Additional Information* There will be a session during the upcomingICANN Dakar Meeting <http://dakar42.icann.org/> to explain the proposal and receive additional community feedback. The session will be chaired by representatives from the RySG. This session will have remote participation for the people not able to attend in person. If you are interested in learning more and have questions, please seehere <http://dakar42.icann.org/node/27219>the details. *Staff Contact:* Karla Valente *Email:* karla.valente(a)icann.org <mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20RySG%20Alternative%20Proposal%20for%20Continuity%20Operations%20Instrument%20public%20comment%20period> -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] List of CEO Search Process Management Work Committee Names
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 17, 2011

Oct. 17, 2011

Chair is George. Thanks, Bene. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:17 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] List of CEO Search Process Management Work Committee Names Dear BC Members, I am posting at the Chair's request the recently selected Board members for the CEO Search Process Management Work Committee. Please find the names below: Steve Crocker George Sadowsky Bertrand de La Chapelle Erika Mann Chris Disspain Cherine Chalaby Ray Plzak R. Ramaraj http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-11oct11-en.htm -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org <http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>

1 0

List of CEO Search Process Management Work Committee Names
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 17, 2011

Oct. 17, 2011

Dear BC Members, I am posting at the Chair's request the recently selected Board members for the CEO Search Process Management Work Committee. Please find the names below: Steve Crocker George Sadowsky Bertrand de La Chapelle Erika Mann Chris Disspain Cherine Chalaby Ray Plzak R. Ramaraj http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-11oct11-en.htm -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

list of BC Participants @ ICANN Dakar
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 17, 2011

Oct. 17, 2011

Dear BC Members, Following the BC call we just held regarding the logistics for the Dakar meeting, please find below the list of confirmed BC attendees, with name, company and arrival/departure dates. I have kept hotel names and contact details confidential as requested. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org DAKAR MEETINGATTENDEES Dates:October 21^st to October 28^th 2011 *N.* *Contact* *Company* *Dates* 1. Chris Chaplow Andalucia.com 21/10 -- 29/10 2. Martin Sutton HSBC 20/10 -- 27/10 3. Phil Corwin Virtualaw LLC 21/10 -- 29/10 4. Marilyn Cade Mcade LLC 21/10 -- 30/10 5. Sarah Deutsch Verizon 24/10 -- 30/10 6. Ayesha Hassan ICC 20/10 -- 29/10 7. Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc 22/10 -- 28/10 8. Philip Sheppard AIM 23/10 -- 27/10 9. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 21/10 -- 27/10 10. Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat 22/10 -- 26/10 11. Steve DelBianco Netchoice 22/10 -- 28/10 12. Jon Nevett Domain Dimensions LLC 22/10 -- 28/10 13. Jeff Brueggeman AT&T 24/10 28/10 14. Tero Mustala Nokia 21/10 -- 27/10 15. Alain Bidron ETNO 20/10 -- 28/10 16. Bill Smith PayPal 21/10 - 17. Susan Kawaguchi Facebook 22/10 -- 28/10 18. Dirk Krischenowski dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. ------------- 19. Jorge Aguila La Caixa ------------- 20. Waudo Siganga Computer Society of Kenya 27/10 -- 30/10 /21./// /John Berard/ /Credible Context/ /Participating Remotely/

1 0