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

GAC scorecard and quick summary
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 24, 2011

Feb. 24, 2011

In preparation for their meeting with the ICANN Board on Monday, the GAC just published their 'scorecard' on ICANN's new gTLD plans. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf Below I provide some summary points about this GAC 'Advice'. But first, read the GAC's intro for their scorecard: The scorecard below represents the considered efforts of the GAC to distil the key elements of consensus advice regarding the introduction of new gTLDs it has been providing the ICANN Board since March, 2007. As the GAC noted in its Cartagena Communique, the GAC's initial advice, presented in the form of Principles, pre-dated both the completion of the GNSO's Recommendations on new gTLDs and the ICANN Board's subsequent adoption of those Recommendations in June, 2008. The GAC has sought from the outset of its deliberations regarding the public policy aspects related to the introduction of new gTLDs to contribute to the bottom-up, consensus-based policy development process within ICANN. As per the ICANN Bylaws, the GAC provides advice directly to the ICANN Board. Once the GAC forwards its advice to the ICANN Board, the GAC understands that it is within the ICANN Board's remit to instruct ICANN staff to take the GAC's advice into account in the development of the implementation plan for the introduction of new gTLDs. The GAC therefore welcomes the opportunity presented by the ICANN Board's agreement to hold a meeting with the GAC to review its longstanding and outstanding concerns regarding ICANN's proposed implementation plan for the introduction of new gTLDs. From the GAC's perspective, the Brussels meetings are not only an appropriate but a critical next step in ensuring the perspectives of governments are fully taken into account in the ICANN private sector-led, multi-stakeholder model that ICANN represents. I believe the government reps in the GAC really do appreciate private sector role in building internet infrastructure and creating nearly all compelling content and commerce. And I think they are gradually warming to the mulit-stakeholeder model. But it takes two to Tango, so ICANN needs to get up and dance, too. And if you dislike the idea of showing respect for the GAC, you will positively hate the idea of letting the UN-ITU run things. That is a very real threat — especially if the new gTLD round lets governments say, "I told you this was going to happen". Just ask Marilyn and others who are 'observing' the UN debating the future of internet governance. GAC Advice: 1.1: GAC may object to a string during initial evaluation. ICANN board can disregard GAC advice, but they must provide an explanation. 1.2: Individual governments (not the entire GAC) may object to Community-based applications and they don't want to pay a fee to file an objection. Makes it that much harder to get a community-based TLD. 3: GAC is concerned about ICANN capacity and root zone stability with 200-300 simultaneous applications. Makes case for a limited first batch of 300. 4: gTLD applicants must describe benefits of their TLD and explain how they will mitigate costs to registrants and consumers. 5: Restrict cross-ownership between registrars and registries where ICANN determines that the TLD is likely to obtain market power. 6.1: TM Clearinghouse should accept any TM recognized in country where registry is based. Both Sunrise and TM Claims should be mandatory, and include variations on the TM term. And… the TM clearinghouse [and services?] should continue after launch. 6.2 URS should be faster, simpler, and be based on lower standard of proof. 6.3: post-delegation dispute resolution should require a lower standard of proof, and be simpler to pursue. 6.4: national consumer protection authorities want ICANN to provide adequate compliance resources. 7: TLD contracts must require registry operator to comply with any legally binding decisions of governments. 8: For community-based applications, Allow governments to protect their legal interest in geographical names. 9: ICANN should seek legal advice where national competition authorities might object to a TLD. 10: Make it cheaper and easier for new gTLD applicants from developing countries. (and for Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited ) 11: Law enforcement wants publicly available and accurate WHOIS, deeper vetting of applicants, and higher weight to applicants offering highest level of security. 12: ICANN should give 'early warning' to applicants if governments object to the string.

2 1

FW: [council] Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group
by Zahid Jamil Feb. 24, 2011

Feb. 24, 2011

FYI. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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 intended recipient 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. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 23 February 2011 03:53 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Council Subject: [council] Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group Councillors, We have an item on our agenda for Thursday's meeting on the DSSA WG (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-24feb11-en.htm) I have been informed by the ccNSO that they are requesting we limit the number of volunteers from the GNSO to 10 for this WG. At the moment, we have 12 volunteers: Zahid Jamil (CBUC) Scott McCormick (CBUC) Mikey O'Connor (CBUC) George Asare-Sakyi (NCSG) Rafik Dammak (NCSG) Matt Serlin - (MarkMonitor, RrSG)) Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG) Greg Aaron (Afilias, RySG) Keith Drazek (Verisign, RySG) Don Blumenthal (PIR, RySG) Mike Rodenbaugh (IPC) Adam Palmer (CBUC) We will need to discuss how to limit our numbers on Thursday. In order to get that discussion going now, I would like to start by asking any of those who have volunteered if they would be willing to step aside in order to help us get down to the 10-volunteer maximum. Stéphane

1 0

Benedetta Rossi
by Chris Chaplow Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

Dear Members, Members who were on the BC members call last Thursday will know that we were joined by Benedetta Rossi. Benedetta will be supporting us with all aspect of member administration and will be attending the San Francisco meeting for a few days up to the constituency day. Born in Milan, Benedetta graduated in Media at Royal Holloway, University of London. She then went on to work for Verizon Business starting as conferencing coordinator and finishing as EMEA Team Senior and Head scheduler. She there gained experience in working in a multicultural environment for high ranking corporate organisations, and was the EMEA point of contact for ICANN. Benedetta speaks English, Italian and French and is currently based in Nice, south of France. I know you will join me in welcoming Benedetta on board the BC. Her BC email address is: secretariat-BC(a)hotmail.com With best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andaluciaws.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

2 1

BC Member views sought for GAC/Board meeting documents
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

BC Members, ICANN posted several briefing papers for ICANN Board-GAC Consultations in Brussels next week. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-21feb11-en.htm Several BC members are attending the Brussels meeting. We will work from previously-adopted BC positions on the topics for this meeting (attached). Further views and guidance form BC members are welcomed. Here are the posted documents: Objection Procedures<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-objection-procedures-21f…>: includes requirements for governments to pay fees; procedures for review of sensitive strings; and early warning to applications—whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names) [PDF, 365 KB] Root Zone Scaling<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-root-zone-scaling-21feb1…> [PDF, 296 KB] Market and Economic Impacts<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-market-economic-impacts-…> [PDF, 316 KB] Registry-Registrar Separation<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-registry-registrar-separ…> [PDF, 452 KB] Protection of Rights Owners (trademark protections)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-protection-rights-owners…> [PDF, 276 KB] Consumer Protection Issues (malicious conduct)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-consumer-protection-mali…> [PDF, 262 KB] Law Enforcement Due Diligence Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-law-enforcement-due-dili…> [PDF, 291 KB] Post Delegation Disputes with governments<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-post-delegation-disputes…> [PDF, 409 KB] Geographic Names: use and protection of geographical names<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-geographic-names-21feb11…> [PDF, 780 KB] Legal Recourse for Applicants<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-legal-recourse-21feb11-e…> [PDF, 171 KB] Providing Opportunities for all Stakeholders<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-providing-opportunities-…> [PDF, 413 KB]

1 0

Updated GNSO Council Agenda 24 February 2011 -- Several issues of concern and interest to BC
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

Dear BC members You will find the updated Council Call agenda below. There are a variety of issues of priority interest to the BC that will be discussed during the Council call, as we reviewed on the BC members call last week. Some items are going out to public comments, and Steve DelBianco, our V.Chair, Policy Coordination, will be providing feedback on which of these might require BC comments, versus individual BC members posting in their individual capacity. Remember that you can listen in real time to the call/see the link below. Also, just a reminder that the next BC members call is March 7/details to be posted separately by Benedetta Rossi and Chris Chapow to the bcprivate list. That call will be a prep for the ICANN meeting. Best Regards Marilyn Cade BC Chair The GNSO Council meeting is audiocast GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 24 February 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-24feb11-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_24_february_2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-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 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, Friday 25 February 00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 Melbourne Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest • Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding “any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party’s judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion” in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: “Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue.” The main issues for this meeting are: • GNSO Project Decision Making • GNSO Improvements • Registration Abuse Policies • DNS Security and Stability • Whois • Cross Community Working Groups • New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 3 February 2011 Council minutes – Approved on 23 February 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10675.html. Item 2: Pending Projects – Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP Working Group (IRTP Part B) (10 minutes) Update on Working Group's progress. Working Group (WG) was started on April 16, 2009. WG is chaired by Michele Neylon. Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf. 2. 1 Update on WG – Marika Konings, ICANN Staff Presentation: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/irtp-b-pdp-wg-24feb11-en.pdf 2. 2 Discussion 2. 3 Next steps Item 3: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) (15 Minutes) 3.1 Approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest • Refer to motion 24 february motions (motion 1) • Discussion • Vote 3.2 Approval of Global Outreach Recommendations for public comment refer to Global Outreach Recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf • Refer to motion 24 february motions (motion 2) • Discussion • Vote Item 4: Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines (10 minutes) • Refer to: resolution 13 Jan meeting http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201101 • See public comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/) as well as summary & analysis provided by staff Update from PPSC Chair (Jeff Neuman) Discuss next steps - in light of comments received, should GNSO Working Group Guidelines be adopted or are further modifications required? If further modifications are required, should these be made by the GNSO Council, or should the comments be referred back to the PPSC for consideration? Item 5: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. 5.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair 5. 2 Discussion 5. 3 Next steps? Item 6: WHOIS studies (20 minutes) A new WHOIS studies report has been posted http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11f…. This includes the staff analysis on the last of the 4 WHOIS studies that the Council asked staff to scope for cost and feasibility (this is the study on "Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal"). The Council must now decide which of the remaining 3 studies (Registrant Identification, Proxy and Privacy "abuse" and this Relay and Reveal study) staff should initiate. (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-chart-11feb11-en.pdf) 6.1 Update on WHOIS studies (Liz Gasster) 6. 2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps, how to decide which studies to do, a motion? Item 7: Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG) (10 minutes) At their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting ALAC, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the GAC and the NRO acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global DNS. To this end these SOs and ACs agreed to establish a joint DNS Security and Stability Working Group (DSSA-WG). Refer to DSSA-WG draft charter http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf Current GNSO volunteers: • Zahid Jamil (CBUC) • Scott McCormick (CBUC) • Mikey O'Connor (CBUC) • Adam Palmer(CBUC Symantec) • George Asare-Sakyi (NCSG) • Rafik Dammak (NCSG) • Matt Serlin - (MarkMonitor, RrSG)) • Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG) • Greg Aaron (Afilias, RySG) • Keith Drazek (Verisign, RySG) • Don Blumenthal (PIR, RySG) • Mike Rodenbaufg (IPC) 7.1 Update from WG (Julie Hedlund) 7. 2 Discussion 7. 3 Selection of GNSO co-chair for the WG. Item 8: Discussion on Community Working Groups (15 minutes) Several Community Working Groups (CWG) have been started recently. How should the GNSO approach such groups? Current CWG in which the GNSO is involved are: ccNSO-GNSO IDN WG (JIG) SSAC/GNSO Internationalized Registration Data (IRD WG) Recommendation 6 Working Group Geographic Regions Drafting Team Joint SO/AC applicant support for new gTLDS working group (JAS) 8.1 Discussion. Item 9: Follow-up on RAP recommendations (10 minutes) Refer to motion passed during 3 February meeting http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102 More specifically, Resolve clause 1: RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource  requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN  Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner. 9.1 Feedback from ICANN Compliance Staff. (Marika Konings) 9. 2 Discussion RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP. 9. 3 Staff update, expected delivery date for Issues Report (Liz Gasster). RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. 9. 4 Staff update, expected delivery date for Discussion Paper (Liz Gasster) Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) 10.1 Update from Staff on goals, expected outcomes and organization of GAC/Board February meeting in Brussels (Staff). 10. 2 Status of San Francisco planning (Olga Cavalli). 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 (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, 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 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+0DST 07:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+0DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 02:00 next day The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com .

1 0

ICANN Now Projects April 14 Release of New Version of Applicant Guidebook.
by Phil Corwin Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

ICANN has just put out a new announcement on the gTLD program at http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22feb11-en.htm . In addition to containing summaries and analyses of the latest comments on the Guidebook, it has this to say about the process going forward -- The ICANN Board and Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) will meet in Brussels<http://meetings.icann.org/board-gac-spring11> from 28 Feb – 1 Mar and during the ICANN meeting in San Francisco (13 – 18 March) in the interest of resolving the outstanding issues the GAC has identified with the new gTLD process. A new version of the Applicant Guidebook is not being published at this time. This decision was made with the intent to avoid presuming the outcomes of the discussions among the Board, GAC, and community. Given the short time period between these consultations and the ICANN meeting in San Francisco, there is little utility to publishing a version with new changes, which would also be subject to additional changes based on the outcomes of these meetings, and without time for comment between versions. Work on the Applicant Guidebook is continuing in parallel with these activities. ICANN is continuing to work with stakeholder groups in order to fully understand comments made on the Guidebook and make changes based upon them. It is expected that the next version of the Guidebook to be released will incorporate updates based on: public comment, ongoing consultations, and changes resulting from the Board-GAC consultations and from community discussions in San Francisco. Expected Path Forward * Board-GAC Consultations: 28 Feb – 1 Mar 2011 * ICANN meeting: 14 – 18 Mar 2011 * Release of Applicant Guidebook: 14 Apr 2011 (emphasis added) Based upon the language of the statement, it appears likely that the version of the Guidebook released in April will likely be subject to an additional round of public comment. As to what that means for the actual opening date of the application window, the answer is unclear but one would expect additional delay until at least June 2011 in my personal opinion. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

3 3

ICANN | New gTLDS: Briefing Papers for ICANN Board-GACConsultations
by greer＠etno.be Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

Briefing papers for next week, bar one, have now been published. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-21feb11-en.htm Sent via BlackBerry offered by Proximus

1 0

ICANN agenda for San Francisco is now posted on the ICANN web site
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

ANNOUNCEMENT: Public Comment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Presents Its Proposed Final Report
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

Dear BC Members: Several of our BC members have been working on this WG and have deep expertise in its implications. It has significant implications for any registrant who has a large, small, or 'mini' portfolio of domain names. It is increasingly complicated to manage a number of names, and with the challenges that registrants face of having to recover cyber squatted versions of their brand name, they often end up with a mixed bag of registrars, rather than a single unified registrar supported registration process. There are many other reasons why a transfer might be needed. The point is that certainty and clarity of process are important to business users/and all registrants. I know we have some real experts on this Report on the BC and will leave the detailed comments to them regarding why PENDR matters to business users, and what kind of supporting comments, or clarifying comments are needed. Please note that the Report is open for Public Comment. Marilyn Cade BC Chair ================================================================================== Subject: . Public Comment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Presents Its Proposed Final Report http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21feb11-en.htm Public Comment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Presents Its Proposed Final Report Your Input Requested on Fourteen (14) Recommendations 21 February 2011> The GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Policy Development Process Working Group was tasked to address questions in relation to what extent registrants should be able to renew their domain names after they expire. At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate. Following review of the comments received on its Initial Report and further deliberations, the Working Group now presents its Proposed Final Report, which contains fourteen (14) recommendations to address the five charter questions it was assigned. Before finalizing its report and submitting it to the GNSO Council for its consideration, the Working Group is asking for your input on the proposed Final Report, especially the proposed recommendations. The public comment forum will be open for 45 days (until 7 April 2011). > > For those interested, the PEDNR Working Group will present its report and proposed recommendations at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco (see http://svsf40.icann.org/sched-overview for further details). > The Recommendations (abbreviated version) > The full recommendations including rationales and other comments can be found in the proposed Final Report. > Recommendation #1: Define "Registered Name Holder at Expiration" (RNHaE) to clearly identify the entity or individual that was eligible to renew the domain name registration immediately prior to expiration. > Recommendation #2: Provide a minimum of 8 days after expiration when the RNHaE can renew, and disable normal operation during that time to attract the attention of the RNHaE. > Recommendation #3: Changes to WHOIS after expiration must not alter the RNHaE ability to renew. > Recommendation #4: All unsponsored gTLD Registries shall offer the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). > Recommendation #5: If a Registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that supports the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP. > Recommendation #6: Registrar website should state any fee(s) charged for the post-expiration renewal of a domain name. > Recommendation #7: Registrars who have a web presence, shall provide a link to ICANN published web content providing educational materials with respect to registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle. > Recommendation #8: ICANN, with the support of Registrars, ALAC and other interested parties, is to develop educational materials about how to properly steward a domain name and how to prevent unintended loss. > > Recommendation #9: The registration agreement and Registrar web site (if one is used) must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications. > > Recommendation #10: Registrar must notify Registered name Holder of impending expiration no less than two times. Subject to an exceptions policy, the timing of such notices is specified. Recommendation #11: Notifications of impending expiration must include method(s) that do not require explicit action other than standard e-mail receipt in order to receive such notifications. Recommendation #12: Unless the Registered Name is deleted by the Registrar, at least one notification must be sent after expiration. Recommendation #13: If at any time after expiration when the Registered Name is still renewable by the RNHaE, the Registrar changes the DNS resolution path to effect a different landing website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to expiration, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to recover the domain. Recommendation #14: Best Practice: If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, and delivery is known to have been interrupted by post-expiration actions, post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists. Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to pednr-proposed-final-report(a)icann.org until 7 April 2011. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#pednr-p… An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted: http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-proposed-final-report/ Further information: * PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report [PDF, 972 KB] * PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report - Executive Summary only [PDF, 376 KB] * PEDNR PDP Initial Report [PDF, 1.02 MB] * PEDNR PDP Initial Report - Executive Summary o English [PDF, 128 KB] * PEDNR WG workspace Background At the ICANN Meeting in Cairo in November 2008, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. The ALAC request was submitted to ICANN policy staff and the GNSO Council on 20 November 2008. The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery [PDF, 422 KB] was submitted to the GNSO Council on 5 December 2008. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on 7 May 2009 and tasked a Working Group to answer the following charter questions: * Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; * Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; * Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; * Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); * Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group started its deliberations in July 2009. Staff responsible: Marika Konings

1 0

ANNOUNCEMENT: Public Comment: Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 21, 2011

Feb. 21, 2011

Dear BC Members: One of the GNSO improvements projects has been focused on developing a Policy Development Process (PDP).The Proposed Final Report is posted below for BC Members to consider. The comment period closes on April 1. This is a complex and detailed document but deserves attention from the BC members. We will live with the process of the PDP, and the processes within Council chartered Working Groups related to policy development in perpetuity. Although the Council did a selfassessment and called for many improvements several years ago, and those were not implemented, but overtaken by a Board ledGNSO Improvements Approach that has stretched out for multiple years. The input into the PDP document has not been able to command fully representative participation and input, partly as a result of the length of the working process. Thus, those of us who tried hard to work within the process will need to be clear that there may be some areas that really must be improved during the comment process. The key areas of change are outlined by staff below. The Chair, Jeff Neuman, has done a terrific job of chairing, and the ICANN staff have been invaluable in the work on the Proposed new GNSO Policy Development Process. Marika is really expert on the details, as is Jeff. Marilyn CadeBC Chair=============================================================================== http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-21feb11-en.htm Public Comment: Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process PDP-WT presents its Proposed Final Report 21 February 2011 As part of GNSO Improvements, the Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team (WT) was tasked to develop recommendations for a new GNSO policy development process. ICANN's policies have wide-ranging impact on how domain names are handled in the gTLD environment, so the method of developing the policies matters. Following review of the comments received on its Initial Report and continued deliberations on remaining issues, the PDP-WT now publishes its Proposed Final Report which contains amongst others forty-eight (48) recommendations, an outline of the proposed new Annex A as well as a supporting document that is envisioned to be included in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures as the PDP Manual. Before finalizing its report and submitting it to the GNSO Council for its consideration, the Working Group is asking for your input. The public comment forum will be open until 1 April 2011. For those interested, the PDP-WT will present its report and the proposed new GNSO Policy Development Process at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco (see http://svsf40.icann.org/sched-overview for further details). Key Recommendations * Some of the key recommendations of the new PDP include: o Recommending the use of a standardized "Request for an Issue Report Template" (recommendation 4) o The introduction of a "Preliminary Issues Report" which shall be published for public comment prior to the creation of a Final Issues Report to be acted upon by the GNSO Council (recommendations 10 & 11). o A Requirement that each PDP Working Group operate under a Charter (recommendation 19) o Dialogue between the GNSO Council and an Advisory Committee in the event that an the GNSO Council decides not to initiate a PDP following an Issues Report requested by such Advisory Committee (recommendation 18) o Changing the existing Bylaws requiring a mandatory public comment period upon initiation of a PDP to optional at the discretion of the PDP Working Group (recommendation 22) o Clarification of 'in scope of ICANN policy process or the GNSO' (recommendation 23) o Changing the timeframes of public comment periods including (i) a required public comment period of no less than 30 days on a PDP Working Group's Initial Report and (ii) a minimum of 21 days for any non-required public comment periods the PDP WG might choose to initiate at its discretion (recommendation 28) o Maintaining the existing requirement of PDP Working Groups producing both an Initial Report and Final Report, but giving PDP Working Groups the discretion to produce additional outputs (recommendation 34) o A recommendation allowing for the termination of a PDP prior to delivery of the Final Report (recommendation 37) o Guidance to the GNSO Council on the treatment of PDP WG recommendations (recommendation 39) o New procedures on the delivery of recommendations to the Board including a requirement that all reports presented to the Board are reviewed by either the PDP Working Group or the GNSO Council and made publicly available (recommendation 40) o The use of Implementation Review Teams (recommendation 43) o A redefinition of 'GNSO Supermajority vote' to include the original meaning of GNSO Supermajority i.e. 2/3 of Council members of each house so a GNSO Supermajority vote would be 75% of one House and a majority of the other house or 2/3 of Council members of each house (recommendation 48) For a complete overview of all the recommendations, please see Section 2 of the Proposed Final Report. Background On 26 June 2008 the ICANN Board approved a set of recommendations designed to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations, and communications. The following pertains to the PDP-WT's mission: Revising the PDP: The Policy Development Process (PDP) needs to be revised to make it more effective and responsive to ICANN's needs. It should be brought in-line with the time and effort actually required to develop policy and made consistent with ICANN's existing contracts (including, but not limited to, clarifying the appropriate scope of GNSO "consensus policy" development). While the procedure for developing "consensus policies" will need to continue to be established by the Bylaws as long as required by ICANN's contracts, the GNSO Council and Staff should propose new PDP rules for the Board's consideration and approval that contain more flexibility. The new rules should emphasize the importance of the preparation that must be done before launch of a working group or other activity, such as public discussion, fact-finding, and expert research in order to properly define the scope, objective, and schedule for a specific policy development goal and the development of metr! ics for measuring success. The charter of the PDP-WT is to develop and document a revised GNSO Policy Development Process that achieves the goals established by the ICANN Board. The PDP-WT, with staff assistance, will need to determine what changes to the bylaws will be required. New processes will need to be documented properly to ensure that the bylaws (and any related operational rules or procedures) are updated accurately. The revised PDP, after review and approval by the PPSC, GNSO Council, and ICANN Board, would replace the current PDP defined in Annex A of the ICANN bylaws. Further Information PDP-WT Proposed Final Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-proposed-final-report-21feb11-en.pdf [PDF, 1.21 MB] PDP-WT Proposed Final Report - Executive Summary Only - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-executive-summary-proposed-final-report… [PDF, 580 KB] PDP-WT Proposed Final Report - without annexes - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-proposed-final-report-no-annexes-21feb1… [PDF, 998 KB] PDP-WT Initial Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-initial-report-31may10-en.pdf [PDF, 2.36 MB] PDP-WT Workspace - https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team GNSO Improvements - http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to gnso-pdp-final-report(a)icann.org until 1 April 2011. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#gnso-pd… An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pdp-final-report/. Staff responsible: Marika Konings

1 0