- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Draft Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

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 Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

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 Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

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 Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

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 Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

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 Oct. 6, 2011

Oct. 6, 2011

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

FW: Someone responded to: ICANN and Ethics
by Phil Corwin Oct. 6, 2011

Oct. 6, 2011

FYI, Bruce Tonkin has posted minutes of the 9/15 BGC meeting (below) -- Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: info(a)circleid.com [mailto:info@circleid.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 9:47 PM To: Phil Corwin Subject: Someone responded to: ICANN and Ethics You have just received a comment for: ICANN and Ethics http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_and_ethics/#8253 By Bruce Tonkin The minutes from the Board Governance Committee meeting of 15 September are now public. See: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-bgc-15sep11-en.htm The relevant resolution relating to Ethics and Conflicts of interest is: "Ethics and Conflicts of Interest – The Committee held a long and detailed discussion about the nature of conflicts of interest, including the requirements relating to disclosure of existing, future or potential future conflicts of interest, as well as abstention from voting in particular circumstances. The Committee also discussed in detail how ethics guidelines compliment a Conflicts of Interest Policy, and the need for ICANN to establish a formal Ethics regime. The BGC approved a motion leading to the following actions: Actions: * The CEO and the General Counsel are to review and propose revisions to the Conflicts of Interest Policy to clarify issues, including disclosure and abstention requirements, surrounding future interests or potential future interests. * The CEO and the General Counsel are to engage an external firm with expertise in advising on ethical issues, to advise and help develop an ICANN Ethics Regime or set of Guidelines for the Board, the staff and the community. * A work party of Cherine Chalaby, Bill Graham and Ray Plzak as current members of the BGC to review and guide staff efforts to revise the Conflicts of Interest Policy and development of the Ethics Regime or set of Guidelines. * Staff to provide BGC with progress report, and BGC to further discuss process and timeline in Dakar." Note also that the BGC has asked the staff to schedule a 90 minute public session in Dakar to provide the community with a briefing on the current conflicts policy and possible changes, and to seek community input. I will provide further details once the details are public. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3900 - Release Date: 09/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

New BC Private mailing list
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 5, 2011

Oct. 5, 2011

Dear BC Members, As part of ICANN's toolkit services, the BC has been granted a new bc "private" mailing list which will be managed directly by me as BC Secretariat. The advantages of changing mailing list are numerous, but they include saving costs by hosting the mailing list directly via ICANN and having the opportunity to host an archiving system for this mailing list as well. The NEW mailing list email address is the following: bc-private(a)icann.org Information regarding the new list can be found below. You will shortly receive all of this information in an automatically generated email as soon as I add your email address to the list. Each member will receive a welcome email with an automatically generated password. This password will allow you to log in to your personal space and manage your subscription (change password, options, etc) and more importantly will allow you to access the email archive. The archive is password protected for privacy reasons, since this mailing list is the one used for transmitting private information such as dial in details, etc. We will continue to host the old mailing list until the end of the month, but it would be great if members started using the new list in the next couple of days. I will add all members email addresses today, October 5th 2011, and you should therefore expect to receive your confirmation email today, with all information regarding the list (found below) and your personal password. A reminder of your chosen password (or automatically generated password if you choose to leave it that way) will be automatically sent to you each month as a reminder. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the new mailing list. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com Example of welcome email once you are subscribed to the new mailing list: Welcome to the Bc-private(a)icann.org mailing list! To post to this list, send your email to: bc-private(a)icann.org General information about the mailing list is at: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at: "personalized link for your email address" You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to: Bc-private-request(a)icann.org with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. You must know your password to change your options (including changing the password, itself) or to unsubscribe. It is: "personalized password will be found here" Normally, Mailman will remind you of your icann.org mailing list passwords once every month, although you can disable this if you prefer. This reminder will also include instructions on how to unsubscribe or change your account options. There is also a button on your options page that will email your current password to you.

2 1

ALERTS From the Secretariat: UPDATED GNSO Council meeting agenda 6 October 2011
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 4, 2011

Oct. 4, 2011

REMINDER FROM THE SECRETARIAT in Addition to the Alert: The Council call on Thursday October 6th can be listened to in real time using the following link which can also be found in the announcement below: GNSO Council meeting audiocasthttp://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com Please find the updated agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October 2011 at 15:00 UTC posted on the Wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+06+Octobe… And on the GNSO website at:http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-06oct11-en.htm Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 6 October 2011. 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.pdfFor 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 (08:00 Los Angeles, 11:00 Washington DC, 16:00 London, 17:00 Brussels, Friday 7 October 00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 22 September minutes –approved on October 2011. Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 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: 10 (9 – Open Council Meeting DT added). • Other activities: 9 (9 - no change) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2– no change). Item 3: Whois Survey Drafting Team (10 minutes) A motion is being submitted to approve the formation of a Whois Survey Drafting Team.Motion deferred from 22 September Council meeting Refer to motion: 1. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 3.1 Reading of the motion (Wendy Seltzer) 3. 2 Discussion 3. 3 Vote Item 4: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes) At its July 21 meeting, the Council was presented with a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. This motion was discussed at the meeting and should now be considered by Council. It should be noted that the motion made before the Council today has been slightly reworked as compared to the motion shown at the July 21 meeting (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011) Motion deferred from 22 September Council meeting. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity (10 minutes) A motion is being made to recommend action by the ICANN Board with regards to addressing Internet-based criminal activity. Motion deferred from 22 September Council meetingRefer to motion: 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 5.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: Amendments to RAA (10 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 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (10 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 5 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Vote Item 8: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b):Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htmIncorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest.The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some guidance: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-dryden-11aug11-en.pdfOn September 18, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council providing the following advice on this topic with regard to a possible UDRP and the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names. During the Council's Sept 22 meeting, the following points were highlighted: • A request to Staff to confer with ICANN General Counsel on the status of the advice that the GNSO receives from the GAC? • This is a proposed topics to discuss with the GAC at the joint GAC- Council meeting in Dakar. • Identify questions or requests for clarification and communicate these to the GAC well in advance of the joint meeting so as to have a meaningful and constructive discussion. 8.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team - Final Charter (CCWG-DT) Cross Community Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf 9.1 Council approval for consideration of the motion submitted to the Council on 29 September 2011http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12100.html Refer to motion 6 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+… 9.2 Reading of the motion ( Margie Milam) 9.3 Discussion9.4 Vote Item 10: Review of proposed agenda for Dakar meeting (20 minutes) 10.1 Discussion item on the GNSO's proposed agenda for the Dakar meeting week, including key points and meetings with other stakeholders and groups. 10.1 1 Review of draft agenda (Jeff Neuman) 10.1.2 Discussion 10.1.3 Next steps 10.2 Interaction with ccNSO Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting, deferred from the July 21 meeting: the ccNSO and the GNSO agreed to try and work together more closely on some projects of common interest. Two were discussed: the work the ccNSO is currently doing on ICANN's strategic plan and budget, and the work the GNSO is currently doing on CWGs. This is a discussion item to ascertain how to push these two initiatives forward.10.2.1 Discussion 10.2.1 Next steps10.3 Open Council Meeting Drafting Team At its Singapore meeting, the Council decided to review the way its Open Meetings are organized. This is a discussion item to review the work of the team so far and identify any changes that might be made in time for the GNSO Council's next Open Meeting, in Dakar on October 26.10.3.1 Update (XXX) 10.3.2 Discussion 10.3.3 Next steps Item 11: Best practices discussion paper (10 minutes) Following a Council request, Staff has prepared a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices for registrars and registries. The best practices are to help address the abusive registrations of domain names. Staff suggests that the Council open a public comment period. A workshop could also be held on this topic during the Dakar ICANN meeting week.11.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next steps Item 12. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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) 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 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 19:00 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 (EST) UTC+10+0DST 02:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Fellowship Application Round Opens for ICANN International Public Meeting 43 in San Jose, Costa Rica
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-30sep11-en.htm Fellowship Application Round Opens for ICANN International Public Meeting 43 in San Jose, Costa RicaProgram Ensures Global Representation at ICANN's Public Meetings30 September 2011MARINA DEL REY, California: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is now accepting online applications for the 15th round of the Fellowship program. Successful candidates will participate in the ICANN meeting to be held in San Jose, Costa Rica from 11-16 March 2012.The Fellowship program is open to applicants who are current residents of developing and least developed nations and interested in participating in ICANN and its supporting organizations, constituencies and stakeholder groups. Priority is given to individuals new to the ICANN environment from government and the ccTLD community, as well as those from academic, civil, business and non-profit entities, which are NOT involved in or associated with other ICANN supported travel programs. The program provides the support and opportunity for these participants to gain knowledge on how to have their voices heard in the Internet community and ICANN. More information regarding terms and conditions, as well as eligibility is available online at http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ or email at fellowships(a)icann.org regarding any questions about this process or program.The Fellowship program arranges the airfare, hotel and a stipend for those individuals selected to participate in this ICANN meeting. Recipients are expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes, both at the meeting and in the future. As always, registration for ICANN's meetings is free for anyone wanting to attend.Applications for the meeting in Costa Rica will be accepted from 00:00 UTC on 1 October 2011 until 00:00 UTC on 14 November 2011. Successful candidates will be posted on the ICANN Fellowship webpage by 22 December 2011.What Is ICANN?To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer – a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet.ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet's unique identifiers.ICANN doesn't control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0