- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Public Comment: Geographic Regions Review - Final Draft Report
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-30sep11-en.htm Geographic Regions Review – Draft Final ReportComment Period Deadlines (*)Important Information LinksPublic Comment BoxOpen Date:30 September 2011To Submit Your Comments (Forum)Close Date:19 December 2011Time (UTC):23:59View Comments SubmittedSection I: Description, Explanation, and PurposeGeographic diversity is a fundamental component of the ICANN organization. The ICANN Bylaws (Article VI Section 5) currently define five geographic regions as Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe.The ICANN Geographic Regions were originally created to ensure regional diversity in the composition of the ICANN Board and were subsequently expanded in various ways to apply to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO).For the past two years a community-wide working group chartered by the ICANN Board has been working to (1) confirm the history, underlying principles and goals of the current geographic regions framework, (2) analyze how those goals and principles have been applied by the Board, Staff and community and (3) consulted with the community on how those principles and goals can be best maintained in the future.This Draft Final Report reflects the penultimate step of that research and consultation effort. The draft document outlines specific recommendations from the Working Group to the ICANN Board regarding how the present Geographic Regions Framework can be modified to ensure that the organizational principles of geographic and cultural diversity are honored and maintained. Those recommendations are based on thorough research, extensive community consultation and reflect the points of view of a wide range of the ICANN community.Mindful of the potential implications even small changes to the framework could have on the wider community, the WG decided to make this draft document available to the community for review and comment before the WG formally publishes its Final Report. The WG will closely review all submitted comments to determine if further modifications to the draft document are necessary.Section II: BackgroundThe ccNSO Council approved a resolution in 2007 recommending that the ICANN Board appoint a community-wide working group to further study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, to consult with all stakeholders and submit proposals to the Board to resolve the issues relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.The rest of the community supported the concept of the working group and the Board authorized its formation at its December 2008 Meeting (see - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07nov08.htm#_Toc87682556).The Board approved the charter of the working group at its public meeting in June 2009 (see -http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#1.2). Copies of the Charter, in all six UN languages, are set forth here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/geographic-regions/charter-26jun09-en.htm.The Working Group produced two previous reports. An Initial Report in which the Working Group (1) identified the various applications and functions to which “ICANN Geographic Regions” are currently applied by existing ICANN structures; (2) documented other regionally identified processes and structures used within ICANN but not defined in the Bylaws; and (3) detailed the “issues” that it thought should be covered during its subsequent investigations.The Working Group also produced an Interim Report that focused on general principles, specific considerations and some of the critical issues that it intended to address in its Final Report document. It (1) offered a review of the underlying history, objectives and general principles of ICANN’s Geographic Regions Framework; (2) raised a number of fundamental strategic questions for further community consideration; and (c) expanded on a number of specific issues identified in the Initial Report that were likely to be addressed in the Final Report.Section III: Document and Resource LinksDocuments posted for comment:Copies of the Draft Final Report in all six UN languages can be found at the following links:العربية [PDF, 325 KB]中文 [PDF, 358 KB]English [PDF, 252 KB]Français [PDF, 324 KB]Русский [PDF, 388 KB]Español [PDF, 390 KB]Appendix A (EN) [PDF, 112 KB]Appendix B (EN) [PDF, 81 KB]Additional Resources:Further information on the work of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group is available at:https://community.icann.org/display/georegionwg/Home+Page+of+Geographic+… IV: Additional InformationThe entire structure of this Working Group effort has been organized to achieve broad community input. All the individual ICANN SOs and ACs were given the opportunity to comment on the community-wide working group concept and each community was invited to send participants to be involved with the working group (all but the RSSAC have contributed members). The entire community had the opportunity to comment on the proposed charter of the Working Group before it was approved by the Board (see March 2009 Geographic Region Review WG Charter Public Comment Period).Every written report generated by the Working Group has been published in all six UN languages and each has been subjected to extended community review and comment opportunities. Working Group members individually reported on the group’s progress to their respective communities. The Working Group also sponsored a community survey (in the six UN languages and Portuguese) seeking another form of community input on the geographic regions framework. Additionally, a public session was conducted at the ICANN Public Meeting in Brussels (June 2010) and public workshops were conducted at the Cartagena (December 2010), San Francisco (March 2011) and Singapore (June 2011) Public Meetings to gather further community perspectives on this matter.Staff Contact:Robert HoggarthEmail:robert.hoggarth@icann.org Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C In BriefThe Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group that will address issues related to the transfer of domain names between registrars. After investigating and considering specific issues (detailed below), the Working Group is expected to recommend how to handle these issues, which could include proposals for changes to the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (a consensus policy adopted in 2004). What This Group Will DoThe initial tasks of the group will be to consider the following questions[1] and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:a) "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an ! aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.How This Group Will WorkICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the IRTP Part C WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Working Group ! is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.How to JoinThe Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Participants in the Working Group that addressed IRTP Part B are especially encouraged to apply. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) This WG is already forming; please apply promptly. BackgroundThe Inter�\Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is a consensus policy adopted in 2004 to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer domain names between registrars. An overall review of this policy identified areas that require clarification or improvement. At its meeting of 22 September 2011, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council passed a resolution chartering a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) to address the topic of Inter-Registrar Transfer Pol! icies (IRTP) Part C. Because the initial review identified a wide range of issues related to transferring domain names, the issues have been categorized into subsets. This Working Group will tackle the issues referred to as ��Part C��. Sent on behalf of the GNSO Chair, St��phane van Gelder Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com [1] See the Final Issue Report on the IRTP Part C for further details on each of these issues.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] US and EU could see power diluted in ICANN
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

Thanks, Phil. We can add this to our discussions for prep for Dakar. There are several strange aspects in the proposal, while in reality, business did not take up much of a voice in this. However for those who work in the intergovernmental arena, you know that the CSTD regions do not match the ITU groups of countries, and of course in many other settings, countries self define. Probably the helpful issue to business was sticking with five regions. I have to study this more, however. So am making a comment only, not expressing an opinion. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 17:16:42 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] US and EU could see power diluted in ICANN http://domainincite.com/us-and-eu-could-see-power-diluted-in-icann/ 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

2 1

US and EU could see power diluted in ICANN
by Phil Corwin Oct. 2, 2011

Oct. 2, 2011

http://domainincite.com/us-and-eu-could-see-power-diluted-in-icann/ 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

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: The Initial Comment Period for "Phase II of Public Comments Process Enhancements" Ends on 30 September 2011
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 30, 2011

Sept. 30, 2011

News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep11-en.htm The Initial Comment Period for "Phase II of Public Comments Process Enhancements" Ends on 30 September 2011 30 September 2011 As an initial test of the "Reply Cycle" concept introduced within this solicitation, the comment forum on this topic will be extended for an additional 15 days (15 October). During this "Reply" period, contributors are asked to address only previously posted comments. Please do not use this extension to submit new comments about the topic. For each Reply, it will be helpful to everyone for the contributor to cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text that is pertinent. At the conclusion of the Reply Cycle, a consolidated Report will incorporate both the initial comment and subsequent reply periods. To view comments previously submitted and to submit a reply, please see the Public Comment Box: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-enhancements-ii-31aug… To view the original announcement, please see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31aug11-en.htm Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: NORC at the University of Chicago Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification Study
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 29, 2011

Sept. 29, 2011

http://blog.icann.org/2011/09/norc-at-the-university-of-chicago-selected-to… at the University of Chicago Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification Studyby LIZ GASSTER on SEPTEMBER 28, 2011I am delighted to report that ICANN has engaged NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification study, seeking a foundational understanding of the types of entities and kinds of potentially commercial activities observed among gTLD domain names.NORC intends to use Whois Registrant contact data to classify the kinds of entities that register a representative sample of gTLD domain names, including natural persons, legal persons and Privacy or Proxy service providers. NORC will then analyze Internet content associated with each sampled domain to classify the entities that appear to be using those domains, along with any observable potentially commercial activities. Draft study results are expected to be published in mid-2012.Entity and activity classifications are not predefined but will be developed during the study, based on sampled data, to help the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and ICANN community better understand the variety of possible correlations that may emerge. ICANN looks forward to working with NORC to publish statistics that describe how various gTLD Registrants identify themselves, in order to inform future gTLD Whois policy discussions.To learn more about the Whois Registrant Identification Study or other studies now being conducted at the request of the GNSO Council, please visithttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com

1 0

NTIA Actively Exploring Inclusion of Ethics and Conflict of Interest Provisions in IANA Contract
by Phil Corwin Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

Just posted this at http://internetcommerce.org/internetcommerce.org/NTIA_on_IANA_to_Wyden ; NTIA letter is attached. NTIA Actively Exploring Inclusion of Ethics and Conflict of Interest Provisions in IANA Contract Submitted by Philip Corwin on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 16:19 In a September 21st letter sent by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) disclosed that it is “actively exploring how to best meet this requirement” for “a clear and enforced ethics and conflict of interest policy” in the next version of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract. This Department of Commerce letter was sent in response to a September 14th letter from Senator Wyden to NTIA raising concerns about news reports of a “revolving door” at ICANN (Wyden press release and link to letter at http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=2e414e69-1250-4ca3-ae6b-… ). The Senator’s letter stated: As you know, any designated IANA is hugely important in regulating the multi-million dollar domain name industry. At the same time, because the IANA is not a branch of the federal government, its executive leadership is not subject to the same financial disclosure, ethics, or conflict of interest rules as executive leadership at federal agencies or in Congress. While I support the control of this system by NTIA, I also believe that any IANA employees ought to be made subject to the same ethics rules in place as NTIA employees. With the growth in importance of this authority, it is important to ensure that decisions are made impartially. Senator Wyden’s interest in this issue was reportedly sparked by a September 21st story in the Washington Post headlined “A ‘revolving door’ at nonprofit keeper of domain names” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/icann-departures-draw-criticism/2011…) Secretary Strickling’s letter of response also notes that the NTIA has conducted two Notices of Inquiry regarding the IANA contract in February and June of this year, and has “received 136 comments from a range of domestic and international stakeholders including governments, private sector entities, and individuals who also noted the need for increase (sic) transparency and accountability” -- all as part of the first comprehensive review of the IANA contract since it was initially awarded to ICANN in 2000. NTIA recently exercised its option to extend the length of the current IANA contract, from the end of September 2011 to March 2012, to allow for extended consideration of whether the contract should be re-awarded to ICANN, as well as what additional conditions should accompany it. The IANA contract provides the technical foundation for ICANN’s DNS policymaking, including the addition of new gTLDs to the root zone file under the program approved by its Board in Singapore this past June and which will open for applications in mid-January 2012. A series of leaked European Commission discussion papers recently proposed that the IANA contract be amended to address ethics issues as well as to give governments greater leverage over the approval of new gTLDs and ICANN’s overall operation. At the same time, the Chairman of ICANN’s Board Governance Committee recently revealed that it has begun an internal discussion of Board and staff ethics issues, has directed staff to draft proposed guidelines, and anticipates community discussion on this matter at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Dakar, Senegal. ICA will be in attendance in Dakar and will continue to closely monitor the ethics, transparency and accountability issues as they are important on their own and have significant implications for ICANN’s future relationship with the U.S. and other governments, as well as for the broader ICANN community including domain investors and developers. 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

1 0

post from Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Kenya
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 27, 2011

Sept. 27, 2011

Yesterday's IGF<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/> sessions brought accusations that the private sector is blocking civil society's efforts to influence Internet Governance. "the private sector has no interest in furthering public values that true multi-stakeholderism would promote, ahead of its own power and profits, which could be threatened by further democratizing governance processes." They are damning the same private sector motivations that produced the most democratizing technologies the world has ever known: Internet search, email, social network services, e-commerce platforms, etc. Here's a post I did on that debate. Gives you a sense for politics in the multi-stakeholder model. http://www.circleid.com/posts/multi_stakeholder_debate_at_the_igf_lessons_f… -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Pre-Dakar ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 26, 2011

Sept. 26, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20sep11-en.htm Pre-Dakar ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 20 September 2011 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details.Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Dakar remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN.The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday 13 October at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 13 October at 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on:Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Issue Report (GNSO)Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (GNSO)Recent WHOIS workStudy Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories (ccNSO)Framework of Interpretation Working Group for the delegation and re delegation of ccTLDs (ccNSO)Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working GroupThe two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio.Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org.In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC or Thursday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 22 September 2011
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 26, 2011

Sept. 26, 2011

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 22 September 2011 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110922-en.mp3 on pagehttp://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

1 0