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

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Enhanced Terms & Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Applications
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04oct11-en.htm Enhanced Terms & Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Applications4 October 2011In order to provide further clarity on the respective obligations of the applicant and ICANN in relation to registrar accreditation applications, ICANN is introducing an enhanced set of terms and conditions for registrar accreditation applications.This step is one of the results of community input that called for the strengthening of the requirements for registrar accreditation, and to address changes that have arisen in the registrar marketplace. The associated public comment period can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#registr… enhanced terms and conditions have been incorporated into the Registrar Accreditation Application, which is availablehere.A partial list of enhancements include:Stronger terms governing the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant and an ongoing obligation to maintain accurate information during the course of the application process.Granting ICANN permission and indemnification for conducting additional due diligence checks.Sets forth in greater detail the application process and obligations.The terms and conditions will apply to all applications received on or after 5 October 2011. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Community Input on Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-03oct11-en.htm Community Input on Draft 2012-2015 Strategic PlanComment Period Deadlines (*)Important Information LinksPublic Comment BoxOpen Date:3 October 2011To Submit Your Comments (Forum)Close Date:17 November 2011Time (UTC):23:59View Comments SubmittedSection I: Description, Explanation, and PurposeICANN continues to pursue the Strategic Planning process in accordance with our published timeline. We are posting a draft version of the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan that is the result of community consultation and staff work. We are soliciting your feedback and comments.There are two versions:Draft 2012-2015 Strategic plan (Clean) [PDF, 865 KB]Draft 2012-2015 Strategic plan (Redline) [PDF, 934 KB]The overall structure of the Strategic Plan has remained consistent with last year's plan. Based upon the input sessions with SO/AC and Staff, some major themes emerged that are in the plan:Last year, there was focus on the IANA follow-on contract risk – this year it was not widely discussed which is evidence that strong support action was/is being takenThe DNS Stability & Security message moves beyond DNS to include IP addresses and parameters (the Unique Identifiers – per ICANN's Mission)The Whois database policy and procedures will receive increased attentionAcknowledgement that Law Enforcement is engaging moreThe New gTLD Program is raising the awareness and profile of ICANN all around the globe – "the New gTLD Program intensifies everything at ICANN"Provided for effective and constructive early participation of the GAC in the policy development processThere will be new stakeholders and categories of stakeholders brought into the ICANN multi-stakeholder model in the next few yearsICANN needs to better define principles for internationalization to steer decisions and expansionICANN needs better enterprise-wide processes and systems (not just Finance) to operate in the futureICANN is an exemplary multi-stakeholder model of Internet governanceICANN meetings present a unique opportunity for ICANN to deliver on the Mission – how meetings can evolve to be more effectiveThis draft is based upon.GNSO IPC input on August 29, 2011 (concerns over Whois, rights protection mechanisms, ICANN lack of neutrality and ethics)ALAC input on August 29, 2011 (outreach to the "edges" of the community, developing country participation, development of metrics)GNSO RySG input on August 29, 2011 (ease of participation, early GAC involvement in policy development process and work to execute the adoption of IDNA 2008, cost benefit analysis of SSR, engaging new stakeholders)ccNSO Singapore input on June 20, 2011 (a session to receive ccNSO input is scheduled)ICANN Team Brainstorm session dated June 2, 2011ICANN Staff Focus Area Working SessionsStrategic Metrics Updates – Staff InputATRT Recommendations report – June 22, 2011ICANN Staff review of Draft: multiple inputs The public comment period will close on 17 November 2011. The draft plan will be revised based on the comments received. A final version of the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan will be submitted to the Board for approval at their upcoming meeting in December 2011.2012-2015 Strategic Plan Draft Development Next Steps:We appreciate your important contribution to ICANN's 2012-2015 strategic planning process. Section II: BackgroundICANN produces a three-year Strategic Plan (reviewed and updated annually) and an annual Operating Plan. As part of the strategic planning process each year, ICANN considers major internal and external events that have occurred since the last writing of the plan. The last plan was posted in December 2010 and approved in February 2011. Section III: Document and Resource LinksThis year's approved Strategic Plan 2011-2014 [PDF, 3.37 MB] – posted after being adopted by the ICANN Board at the Silicon Valley Meeting – has incorporated strategic metrics based on extensive community input, review and public forums held in both Cartagena and Silicon Valley.Section IV: Additional InformationThe Strategic Plan informs the Operating Plan and Budget and helps to define ICANN's yearly goals and priorities, and will be considered for adoption by the Board.Staff Contact:Carole Cornell, Senior Director Project ManagementEmail:carole.cornell@icann.org Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Protecting Trademark Rights for New gTLDs: ICANN Seeks Service Providers for Trademark Clearinghouse Operation
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-5-03oct11-en.htm Protecting Trademark Rights for New gTLDs: ICANN Seeks Service Providers for Trademark Clearinghouse Operation(Trademark Clearinghouse or "TMCH" Service Providers)3 October 2011ICANN is issuing today a Request for Information (RFI) [PDF, 243 KB] to identify potential Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Service Providers. The Trademark Clearinghouse will provide a set of rights protection mechanisms that are part of ICANN's program to make new top-level domains widely available.The primary purpose of the TMCH is to function as an information repository, offering authentication and validation services for trademark data. Trademark holders and gTLD registry operators will rely on the TMCH to support rights protection mechanisms for the new gTLD space. The TMCH is designed to be available globally, with capabilities for validating trademark data in multiple scripts and responding to inquiries in multiple languages.Part of ICANN's core mission is to preserve the operational security and stability of the Internet while also supporting open competition. With the upcoming launch of the New generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program, the Internet community will see the introduction of a number of new gTLD namespaces. To ensure that the new gTLD program gave appropriate consideration to trademark protection, ICANN's Board passed a resolution on 6 March 2009 to form an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) to seek enhanced solutions supporting trademark protection. One recommendation was the establishment of a Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).Candidates for operating the TMCH are expected to meet the requirements outlined in the RFI, which include, for example, a demonstrated understanding of the issues concerning global intellectual property rights and the Internet, global capability to authenticate and validate trademark information, and experience designing, building, and operating secure transaction processing systems with 24/7/365 availability. ICANN seeks candidates with a proven ability to manage and support processes in multiple languages, in addition to fulfillment of the technical requirements.RFI activities schedule at a glance:Request for information issued by ICANN3 October 2011Respondents' Q&A – TeleconferenceOn or about 4 November 2011Written responses due25 November 2011 – 23:59 UTCPublic announcement of provider engagement14 Februrary 2012The deadline for responses is 25 November 2011 at 23:59 UTC. Responses should be submitted to: tm-clearinghouse-rfi(a)icann.org. Responses received after the deadline will not be considered.Q&AWhat is the TMCH?The TMCH serves as an information repository that will accept and maintain data relating to trademark rights, including both registered and unregistered rights, and will support registration processes in ASCII and IDN gTLDs.What is a TMCH Service Provider?The functions of data authentication/validation and database administration may be performed by a single service provider or by two separate service providers. Respondent proposals will be accepted for:performance of the data authentication/validation function of the TMCH; orperformance of the database administration function of the TMCH; orperformance of both the data authentication/validation functions and the database administration functions of the TMCH.The foremost considerations for selection of the TMCH service provider(s) will be the ability to authenticate, validate, store and disseminate the data at the highest level of technical stability and security without interference with the integrity or timeliness of the gTLD registration process or registry operations.What are the key functions?Functions that are critical to the operation of the TMCH include:Trademark Claims and Sunrise Services – Provide transactional services that allow parties such as registries and/or registrars to rapidly obtain information necessary to conduct Sunrise and Trademark Claims services for new gTLDs.Database Operation – Maintain the repository of relevant trademark data while providing services for conducting searches and integrating with TMCH operations.Data Authentication and Validation – Establish and execute standard processes for authentication of trademark rights information, validation of proof-of-use information, and verification of contact information.Customer Service – Answer questions, resolve issues, and provide support for use of TMCH services.Language Support – Conduct TMCH operations in multiple languages.Who will use the TMCH and when?With the launch of the new gTLD program, new gTLD operators will be required to offer services that are supported solely by the TMCH for a sunrise period of at least 30 days, and for an initial operating period during the first 60 days of general registration. Beyond that period, registries may optionally continue to use the TMCH trademark claims services but these are not mandated beyond the initial time periods specified for any given new gTLD.What kind of information is ICANN requesting and who should respond?Respondents should be parties interested in committing themselves as potential TMCH operators. The RFI covers numerous areas, but respondents should be prepared to discuss the following:How they can scale quickly to meet the demands of a large number of transactions;How they will provide and manage the availability of services to users 24x7, 365 days a year;The capabilities they have to support processes in multiple languages;The capabilities they have to provide global trademark authentication and validation services;Their experience and expertise in trademark protection issues; andTheir ability to work with ICANN and the community to refine core business processes and evolve the TMCH operation.BackgroundThe IRT, consisting of 18 geographically diverse subject matter experts from the intellectual property arena, made several recommendations to enhance trademark protection (see http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-final-report-trademark-protect… [PDF, 299 KB]). The original proposal has undergone multiple revision cycles based on ICANN's public comment process, resulting in the current model. The requirements for the TMCH have been defined at a high level and will be refined through the RFI and subsequent processes. The overall goals of the TMCH are to:Support rights protection mechanisms in the gTLD program;Operate cost-effective services that do not place undue financial or administrative burdens on trademark holders, registrars, and registries; andEstablish an ongoing partnership with stakeholders to evolve the TMCH so that it remains an efficient, value-added service provider for the IP and gTLD communities.On 22 June 2011, the TMCH was discussed at the ICANN meetings in Singapore, where participants took part in a working session on a straw-man implementation model (http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24629) Development of the models for mandatory Sunrise and Trademark claims processes will continue while ICANN evaluates responses to this RFI.Links to Relevant InformationNew gTLD ProgramTrademark Clearinghouse [PDF, 320 KB] Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Coordination Team Formed for IDN Variant Issues Project
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-03oct11-en.htm Coordination Team Formed for IDN Variant Issues Project3 October 2011The benefits and risks associated with the potential delegation of variant TLDs have been widely discussed. On 20 April 2011, ICANN announced the initiation of the IDN Variant Issues Project. This project is dedicated to identifying the issues involved in the delegation and use of IDN Variant TLDs.To achieve that goal, on 9 June 2011, ICANN announced the formation of six case study teams – Arabic, Devanagari, Chinese, Cyrillic, Greek and Latin scripts. Since then, these teams have been working hard on identifying issues involved in IDN Variant TLDs in their particular scripts with the expectation that each of these teams will publish their reports prior to the ICANN meeting in Dakar (24-28 October). After that, a final integrated issues report will be published, describing the challenges associated.Figure 1 – The project incorporates individual script case studies, a synthesis of the issues, and an additional phase toward developing solutions.Today, the first of the reports are being published for public comment:Chinese Case Study ReportDevanagari Case Study ReportThe remaining case study reports (Arabic, Cyrillic, Greek and Latin) are expected shortly and will be posted for public comment.Additionally, we are pleased to announce the formation of a team, comprised of experts from the case study teams, who will advise ICANN in completing a consolidated issues report that will summarize and synthesize the issues identified by the case study teams. The group's work in preparation of this consolidated report is scheduled to start in October at the ICANN public meeting in Dakar, Senegal.The individual members of the issues report coordination team (listed below) have expertise in the areas of: DNS, IDNA, linguistics, security and scalability, policy, registry/registrar operations, and community representation.An all-day working session of the coordination team members only is being planned for the Dakar meeting, followed by an open public session at which representatives from the case study teams and the ICANN project team will present the case studies and provide an update on the consolidated issues report.Interested members of the community can receive updates and participate in the discussions of this work by subscribing tovip(a)icann.org mailing list (https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/vip) or by visitinghttps://community.icann.org/display/VIP/.Issues Report Coordination TeamHarald AlvestrandRaiomond DoctorNeha GuptaSarmad HussainManal IsmailAkshat JoshiCary KarpMahesh KulkarniXiaodong LeeEvangelos MelagrakisPanagiotis PapaspiliopoulosVaggelis SegredakisJames SengVladimir ShadrunovAlexei SozonovJoseph Yee Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Draft Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-03oct11-en.htm Draft Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working GroupComment Period Deadlines (*)Important Information LinksPublic Comment BoxOpen Date:3 October 2011To Submit Your Comments (Forum)Close Date:17 November 2011Time (UTC):23:59View Comments SubmittedSection I: Description, Explanation, and PurposeICANN is seeking public comments on the draft Final Report [PDF, 437 KB] of the joint SSAC-GNSO Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD-WG). This draft Final Report studies the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data and finds that it is feasible to introduce submission and display specifications to deal with Internationalized Domain Name Registration Data and recommends a series of next steps that could be undertaken to address further the technical and policy issues identified in this report, including a recommendation that the GNSO Council request an Issue Report on the policy questions raised in this report. Following the close of this comment period, the IRD-WG, will discuss and consider all of the comments received and prepare a Final Report, which will then be considered by both chartering organizations, the SSAC and the GNSO Council.Section II: BackgroundOn 26 June 2009 the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporate for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved a resolution (2009.06.26.18: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#6) requesting that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), in consultation with staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data.The Board further directed the IRD-WG to solicit input from interested constituencies including country code top level domain (ccTLD) operators and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) during its discussions to ensure broad community input. Subsequently, the SSAC and the GNSO formed the IRD-WG to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing specifications to deal with the submission and display of internationalized registration data.The IRD-WG produced an Interim Report requesting community input on several questions relating to possible models for internationalizing Domain Name Registration Data. See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-wg-final-report-15nov10-en.pdf[PDF, 686 KB]. Now the IRD-WG has provided a draft Final Report in response to the Board's request. The IRD-WG interprets the Board's request as two broad issues and related questions:Suitability issues:Is it suitable (or desirable) to internationalize Domain Name Registration Data?If so, what data element is suitable to be internationalized?Is it suitable to introduce submission and display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data?Feasibility issues:Is the current WHOIS system capable of handling the query and display of internationalized Domain Name Registration Data?Is it feasible to introduce submission and display specifications to deal with internationalized Domain Name Registration Data?The draft Final Report discusses terminology, background on Domain Name Registration Data, data elements, WHOIS protocol, and current practices by gTLD and ccTLD registries and registrars. In addition, the draft Final Report finds that it is feasible to introduce submission and display specifications to deal with internationalized Domain Name Registration Data and recommends a series of next steps that could be undertaken to address further the technical and policy issues identified in this report, including a recommendation that the GNSO Council request an Issue Report on the policy questions raised in this report. The Issue Report would consider whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script, and who should bear the burden and would be in the best position to address these issues. ICANN staff is seeking comments on this draft Final Report, particularly its findings and recommendations: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-draft-final-report-03oct11-en.pdf[PDF, 437 KB]Section III: Document and Resource Links26 June 2009 the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporate for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved a resolution (2009.06.26.18: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#6) directing the establishment of the IRD-WG.IRD-WG Interim Report [PDF, 686 KB]IRD-WG draft Final Report [PDF, 437 KB]Section IV: Additional InformationNoneStaff Contact:Julie HedlundEmail:julie.hedlund@icann.org Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Variant Issues Project -- Chinese Case Study Team Issues Report
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03oct11-en.htm Variant Issues Project -- Chinese Case Study Team Issues ReportComment Period Deadlines (*)Important Information LinksPublic Comment BoxOpen Date:3 October 2011To Submit Your Comments (Forum)Close Date:14 November 2011Time (UTC):23:59View Comments SubmittedSection I: Description, Explanation, and PurposeAs described in earlier announcements on this topic, the benefits and risks associated with the potential delegation of Variant TLDs have been widely discussed and solutions are being pursued.ICANN is publishing today the issues report completed by the Chinese case study team, for public comment. In accordance with the Variant Issues Project [PDF, 195 KB], ICANN has conducted six case studies of individual scripts to investigate any issues that need to be resolved to facilitate a good user experience for IDN variant TLDs.Individual case studies for the Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Greek, and Latin scripts have been undertaken. Each study, carried out by a volunteer community study team with help from ICANN staff, concentrates on specific issues that are relevant to the individual scripts.It is expected that the results of the case studies will play a crucial role in the identification of solutions towards the delegation of IDN variant TLDs. With these individual case studies being completed, a team comprised of representatives from the case study teams and ICANN will develop a single, integrated issues report to be published in December 2011. After that, work on developing solutions can proceed as a second phase.Public comment on these reports will inform the formulation of the combined issues report. The public comment forum is open through 14 November 2011.Section II: BackgroundOn 25 September 2010 the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) directed the CEO "to develop an issues report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs as part of the new gTLD process in order to facilitate the development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs." (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm-2.5)In response ICANN has conducted six case studies of individual scripts to investigate any issues associated with delegating and using IDN variant TLDs that need to be resolved to facilitate a good user experience.The original Variant Issues Project proposal [PDF, 195 KB] was published on 20 April 2011.Section III: Document and Resource LinksDocument posted for public comment: Chinese Case Study Team Report [PDF, 2.86 MB]Section IV: Additional InformationNext steps: ICANN will complete a consolidated issues report that will summarize and synthesize the issues identified by the case study teams. The group's work in preparation of this consolidated report is scheduled to start in October at the ICANN public meeting in Dakar, Senegal.Staff Contact:Steve ShengEmail:steve.sheng@icann.org Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Variant Issues Project -- Devanagari Case Study Team Issues Report
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03oct11-en.htm Variant Issues Project -- Devanagari Case Study Team Issues ReportComment Period Deadlines (*)Important Information LinksPublic Comment BoxOpen Date:3 October 2011To Submit Your Comments (Forum)Close Date:14 November 2011Time (UTC):23:59View Comments SubmittedSection I: Description, Explanation, and PurposeAs described in earlier announcements on this topic, the benefits and risks associated with the potential delegation of Variant TLDs have been widely discussed and solutions are being pursued.ICANN is publishing today the issues report completed by the Devanagari case study team, for public comment. In accordance with the Variant Issues Project [PDF, 195 KB], ICANN has conducted six case studies of individual scripts to investigate any issues that need to be resolved to facilitate a good user experience for IDN variant TLDs.Individual case studies for the Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Greek, and Latin scripts have been undertaken. Each study, carried out by a volunteer community study team with help from ICANN staff, concentrates on specific issues that are relevant to the individual scripts.It is expected that the results of the case studies will play a crucial role in the identification of solutions towards the delegation of IDN variant TLDs. With these individual case studies being completed, a team comprised of representatives from the case study teams and ICANN will develop a single, integrated issues report to be published in December 2011. After that, work on developing solutions can proceed as a second phase.Public comment on these reports will inform the formulation of the combined issues report. The public comment forum is open through 14 November 2011.Section II: BackgroundOn 25 September 2010 the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) directed the CEO "to develop an issues report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs as part of the new gTLD process in order to facilitate the development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs." (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm-2.5)In response ICANN has conducted six case studies of individual scripts to investigate any issues associated with delegating and using IDN variant TLDs that need to be resolved to facilitate a good user experience.The original Variant Issues Project proposal [PDF, 195 KB] was published on 20 April 2011.Section III: Document and Resource LinksDocument posted for public comment: Devanagri Case Study Team Report [PDF, 462 KB]Section IV: Additional InformationNext steps: ICANN will complete a consolidated issues report that will summarize and synthesize the issues identified by the case study teams. The group's work in preparation of this consolidated report is scheduled to start in October at the ICANN public meeting in Dakar, Senegal.Staff Contact:Naela SarrasEmail:naela.sarras@icann.org Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 6 October 2011
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 6 October 2011 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp3 on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

Dear BC Members, Ahead of the official minutes please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October 2011. 1. Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… ),and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ),and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 );Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools;Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs;Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting;Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report;Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements;Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey “Working Group”, preferring the term “Working Group” to “Drafting Team” in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdfReso… GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010.The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here:http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pd… accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council by October 2012. 2. Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations - deferred from 22 September Council meetingWhereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf);Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report;Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf… the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102);Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco.Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11… THEREFORE BE IT:RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department ‘to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council’s and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly.RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation.RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation.RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs.RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department.RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse.RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time.RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time. 3. Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; andWHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; andWHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity;RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions:1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number.Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address.2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change.3. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency’s first contact with a registrar.4. Freedom of Expression impact analysis.4. Motion to create a GNSO Drafting Team on Cross Community Working Groups (CCWG):Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO drafting team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups, in accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation of a GNSO drafting team which will be responsible for developing a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs; Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this open working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the DT can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and Resolved further, that the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT. As specified in the Charter, a status report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar year 2012. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

RE: BC tabled Motion on RAP passes in toto
by Marilyn Cade 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

thanks for this update. I am listening into the Council call, and the topic is reserved names for red cross/olympic names.It is possible that we will have a BC/CSG discussion during Dakar on this topic. M From: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org To: zahid(a)dndrc.com; excomm(a)bizconst.org Subject: Re: BC tabled Motion on RAP passes in toto Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:20:13 +0000 Outstanding results. Please let us know what happens with Law enforcement resolution and discussion of the Red Cross/IOC From: Zahid Jamil <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Organization: Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 17:16:59 +0100 To: "excomm(a)bizconst.org" <excomm(a)bizconst.org> Subject: BC tabled Motion on RAP passes in toto Steve and Excomm, Just to inform you all that the RAP motion to which several BC members made enormous contribution was successfully passed by the Council today. All resolutions received unanimous consent whilst the Uniformity of Contracts resolved was voted against en bloc by the Contracted parties house but all on the Non-contracted party house voted in favour (only 25 of both houses or majority of one house was required). Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil& Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intendedrecipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication)without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.

3 3