- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse
by Michael D. Palage April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

Hello All, For those that have been tracking the GAC new gTLD Scorecard one of the areas in which there seems to be an impasse is in connection with what the GAC has deemed an Early Warning system for those strings that might give rise to important public policy considerations. I recently co-authored an article attempting to bridge this gap, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_phased_array_early_warning_system/. Any constructive feedback would be welcomed. Best regards, Michael

2 2

ICANN Confluence Wiki new GNSO tab
by Chris Chaplow April 6, 2011

April 6, 2011

Dear Members, Please be aware that the ICANN Confluence Wiki migration continues from the old social Text System The new GNSO tab has just been added: https://community.icann.org/category/sub-dashboard.action?categoryKey=gnso Explore the other tabs. The BC can now have a wiki section within the GNSO tab if we formally request it. I would need to propose a structure for our pages. It would be convenient way of presenting fast changing information not suitable for the present website. An example might be calendar of BC meeting. (Thanks for your suggestion to reactivate this Scott) Any views welcome... Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.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@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

2 1

RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for 2012
by Chris Chaplow April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

Please find attached redline V2 of the document updated after members comments. Looking forward to speak on the call later today. Best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.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@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

2 2

NetChoice comment on IANA
by Steve DelBianco April 2, 2011

April 2, 2011

Just sharing the NetChoice comment on IANA (attached). We took a different tack than ETNO, because we are concerned about ICANN's 'commitment' to the Affirmation of Commitments. Before responding to specific questions in the RfC, we address the comment filed by ICANN on March 25, arguing to remove Commerce Department review of IANA function performance. For reasons explained below, we believe that Commerce must retain regular IANA contract reviews in order to hold ICANN to its Affirmation of Commitments. … -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Last Call: BC discussion draft for SSR comments, to be filed 6-April
by martinsutton＠hsbc.com April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Mike, I like your change to emphasis and support this amendment following Mikey's prior changes. I also applaud those that have dedicated effort to draft this (especially Adam). Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" [icann(a)rodenbaugh.com] Sent: 01/04/2011 14:40 MST To: <bc-GNSO(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Last Call: BC discussion draft for SSR comments, to be filed 6-April Thanks Adam, Mikey, Steve and others for drafting this excellent piece. I have but one issue with it. I suggest changing this sentence, which follows the numbering of the 3 issues: The BC recognizes the narrow scope of ICANN's technical coordination role, but this should not be relied upon to limit participation in coordinated efforts to combat malicious DNS activity. I do not think the BC should be recognizing any "narrow scope" of ICANN's role, at least not without defining what we mean. Instead, I propose this: ICANN's Bylaws require it "to ensure the stable and secure operation" of the DNS. Therefore, ICANN must view participation in coordinated, industry efforts to combat malicious DNS as absolutely essential to that mission. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 1:06 PM To: bc-GNSO(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Last Call: BC discussion draft for SSR comments, to be filed 6-April As discussed on yesterday's BC member call, this is "last call" on SSR. Please review and comment on our discussion draft in response to SSR (Security, Stability and Resiliency) review team issues. SSR Review Team (AoC) Set of Issues (Due 6-Apr) Adam Palmer's draft circulated 24-Mar. Mikey O'Connor circulated edits 25-Mar Awaiting reaction from members and Adam on Mikey's markup. (attached) On 3/24/11 11:22 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments required a community review of DNS Security Stability & Resiliency (SSR). The SSR Review Team is now gathering public input on the set of issues it proposes for this review. Attached is a discussion draft for BC submission, prepared by Adam Palmer. Several of the 11 issues in this draft are empty - some because answers are given elsewhere in the draft; rest are blank because Adam wanted to leave room for other BC members to add their security expertise! The Review Team is seeking responses by 6-April, so today (24-March) begins our 14-day review period for this discussion draft. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 1-April, these comments will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN on 6-April. As always, BC members are also encouraged to submit their own responses and to share those with the BC list. For topic background, see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-rt-issues Thanks again to Adam for volunteering to do this discussion draft. And thanks to Jeff Brueggeman for serving on the SSR Review Team. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

1 0

Posted Comments to NTIA's NOI on the IANA Functions
by Marilyn Cade April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Dear BC Members I have pasted below the comments posted by ICANN to the NTIA's NOI on IANA Functinos Arrangement. This is merely an informational posting, for your convenience. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/ Normally, a flood of postings occur on the closing date, so I would suggest that you expect a larger number of postings by cob today, and possibly Monday. Best Regards Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

2 1

Posted Comments to NTIA's NOI on the IANA Functions
by Marilyn Cade April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Dear BC Members I have pasted below the comments posted by ICANN to the NTIA's NOI on IANA Functinos Arrangement. This is merely an informational posting, for your convenience. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/ Normally, a flood of postings occur on the closing date, so I would suggest that you expect a larger number of postings by cob today, and possibly Monday. Best Regards Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

1 0

GNSO Council meeting Agenda 7 April 2011‏
by Benedetta Rossi April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Dear BC MembersAs Secretariat for the BC, I will be assuming the role of posting updates to the BC Membership to offload the Chair and Vice ChairFinance and Administration. From time to time, substantive announcements about an issue may also be posted by Steve Delbianco, Chris Chaplow or Marilyn Cade but regular announcements like this one will come from me, and questions should come back to me at secretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com. I am pleased to forward the following information: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 7 April 2011Details on how to listen into the Council's callWiki agenda information with all the latest updates on resolutions, positions, etc. Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 7 April 2011.http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-07apr11-en.htmPlease note that the Wiki agenda will have the latest updates.Wiki agenda https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+7+April+2011… 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.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 20:00 UTCCoordinated Universal Time:20:00 UTC - see below for local times(13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels,Friday 8 April 05:00 Tokyo; 06:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors s! hould notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.GNSO Council meeting audiocasthttp://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3uItem 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 MakingGNSO ImprovementsRegistration Abuse Polici esWhoisIDN’s1.2 Update any statements of interestJonathan Robinsonhttp://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/robinson-soi-25mar11-en.htm 1.3 Review/amend agenda1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:• 16 March 2011 Council minutes – scheduled for approval on 9 April 2011Item 2: Pending Projects – GNSO Toolkit of services (15 minutes)Update on this work: the “toolkit” refers to a list of basic services approved by the GNSO Council 17 Dec 2009 that will be made available to eligible GNSO organizations. Implementation proposals have been discussed and feedback requested by Feb 15, 2011.Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list:L http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2. 1 Update on work, indication of proposed next steps – Rob Hoggarth, ICANN Staff2. 2 Discussion2. 3 Next stepsItem 3: WHOIS studies (20 minutes)Refer to motion 1, deferred from previous meeting. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/! Motions+7+April+20113.1 Discussion3.2 Vote3.3 Update on Whois Requirements (Liz Gasster)Item 4: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) (20 minutes)Refer to motion 2 , deferred from previous meeting. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+201… Discussion 4.2 Vote Item 5: Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SC-DT) (15 minutes)The GNSO Improvements Standing Committee Drafting Team is presenting its charter for the Council approval.Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+201… Discussion 5.2 Vote Item 6: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG) (15 minutes)The Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group is tasked with identifying IDN issues of common interest to the ccTLD and gTLD communities and proposing methodology to resolve them.It is presenting its report on single character IDNs for the Council approval.Refer to: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Wor! king Group Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG) http://gnso .icann.org/drafts/jig-final-report-30mar11-en.pdf Refer to motion 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+201… Discussion 6.2 VoteItem 7: GNSO Working Group Guidelines (10 minutes)Information Item.http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf. Refer to motion 4 from March 16 meeting https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_march_motions and in particular the following resolve clauses:RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as proposed by the PPSC include link and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the GNSO Working Group Guidelines into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.RESOLVED, to the extent practical and feasible, each existing Working Group shall incorporate these Working Group Gui! delines into their activities.RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the WG-WT and PPSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.7.1 Update from Staff on when the new version of the Operating Procedures will be ready. (Marika Konings) 7.2 Instruct Staff to inform all current GNSO WGs of the adoption of the new guidelines so that they can incorporate them (see 3rd resolve clause above).7.3 As per resolved further clause above, the Council thanks the WG and declares that it is now closed. Instruct Staff to remove the PPSC WG-WT from the Pending Projects list.7.4 DiscussionItem 8: Revision to GNSO Council Operating Procedures Section 5.0: Statements of Interest (10 minutes)OSC Proposed Revision to Section 5.0:http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb1… to: resolution 24 February meeting:https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_february_motionsSee public co! mments received (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-5) as we ll as summary & analysis provided by staffRefer to Council discussion during Feb 24 meeting.http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-03feb11-en.htmRefer to motion 5https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+20… Summary of revisions to Section 5.0 (Julie Hedlund)8.2 Discussion8.3 VoteItem 9. 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 tha! n 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; and6. 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 March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated! Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-5+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 00:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 06:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com

1 0

FW: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process
by Steve DelBianco March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Philip, John Berard made this comment on your draft: Thanks to Philip for slogging through the proposed policy document. The two points made -- long and complex -- combine to create an even more difficult problem: it is hard for new people to feel comfortable. Making the process -- and ICANN, in general -- more accessible is a goal worth promoting. John also suggests adding this paragraph to your PDP draft comment: The complexity of the PDP report points to a larger problem, It is increasingly difficult for people new to ICANN to easily engage and, therefore, contribute to the community. The proposal laudably intends to reset the process for all, but it would be improved if there were a summary -- visual or executive -- that could serve as a roadmap. Are you agreeable to that addition? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Fri, March 25, 2011 2:48 pm To: "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org>" <bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org>> ICANN is now gathering public comment on the final report and recommendations by a work team focused on the Policy Development Process (PDP-WT) Below is a draft for BC comments prepared by Philip Sheppard. ICANN's Comment period closes 1-April, so today (25-March) begins an abbreviated 7-day review period for these abbreviated comments. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 30-March, these comments will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN on 1-April. For topic background, see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-pdp-final-report Thanks again to Philip Sheppard for his brief but pointed review of a report that's over 100 pages long. Thanks also to BC members who served on the PDP work team: Marilyn Cade Mike Rodenbaugh John Berard ---- DRAFT BC position on Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team Proposed Final Report & Recommendations General Comments At 109 pages the report is thorough but overly long. It is a report of a team with recommendations but not yet a guide for prospective participants in a PDP. As noted in recommendation 3 this work needs to be turned into a short practical manual on the PDP without references to the working team or recommendation number ## or extraneous points of discussion. The start of such a document in section 5 is good but seems overly long at around 15 pages. A rigorous edit is required. The flow charts are useful but overly complex. A simplified one for council initiated work only is needed. A flowchart showing timelines would be useful. Comments on specific recommendations 10 and 11. The BC is concerned that the “preliminary issues report” is being over engineered. This report is intended to be short and factual outlining the issue raised NOT solving it or adding opinion on its merit. Therefore an additional public comment period at this stage is both redundant and will waste time. 12. Whereas certain issues will indeed benefit from a workshop, making this a mandatory procedure is short sighted. 13. A possible impact analysis before a vote to start a PDP is an option that will be gamed by parties wishing to delay a new PDP. 16. Codifying a practice to delay seems a dangerous precedent. If done the wording needs to be clear that this is not a cumulative right potentially delaying a decision to launch a PDP by six Council meetings. Voting thresholds. There is a lot of discussion about Council voting thresholds. The BC recommends further changes to these should simplify not add complexity to an already overly complex structure.

2 1

CircleID post on GAC and ICANN Board
by Steve DelBianco March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

I'm a bit chagrined to use XXX in the headline of this post, but I'll take any opportunity to pressure ICANN Board and management to "mind the GAC" on new gTLDs. See http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110327_dot_xxx_exposes_the_naked_truth_for_… Also made similar remarks last week at the Capitol Hill panel: "Influencing ICANN: What Role Will World Governments Have Over Internet Domain Functions?<http://www.netcaucus.org/events/2011/ICANN/>" Audio available at http://netcaucus.org/audio/2011/20110321icann.mp3 -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0