- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 17 January 2013 at 8 pm UTC
by Benedetta Rossi Jan. 8, 2013

Jan. 8, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting taking place on 17 January 2013 at 8 pm UTC, which is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#jan http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-17jan13-en.htm And on the Wiki (where you will find the latest updates) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda-17+January+2… *Tomorrow, 9 January 2013 is the deadline for motions and they will be **posted on page:*** https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+-+17+Januar… * Draft **Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 17 January 2013*** This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. _Meeting Times 20:00 UTC <http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx>__ _*http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t* Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 09:00 Wellington (next day 14 January 2013) 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 audio cast * *http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u* *_Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)_* 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates General updates and/or for specific current agenda items. 1.3 Review main changes. 1.4 Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 20 December 2012 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-20dec12-en.htm>were approved effective 2 January 2013. 1.5 GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. *_Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (5 minutes)_* Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics *_Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)_* *__* *_Item 4: MOTION -- Any motion submitted by 09 January 2013 (10 minutes)_* *__* Description of motion Link to motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+-+17+Januar…> * *4.1 Reading of the motion (Proposer). 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 4.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). *_Item 5: MOTION -- Any additional motion submitted by 09 January 2013 (10 minutes)_* *__* Description of motion Link to motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+-+17+Januar…> ** 5.1 Reading of the motion (Proposer). 5.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 5.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). *_Item 6: INFORMATION - GNSO Council Review and SIC Update (15 minutes)_* In Toronto, the Chair of the SIC provided an overview of a new framework for future independent review efforts at ICANN. The GNSO was used as a case study to describe the effort because it is the first Supporting Organization lined-up in the next review cycle. Staff will brief the Council on the set of criteria metrics for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and the work underway to develop metrics for the Council and the Working Group Model of policy. 6.1 Update from Staff (Rob Hogarth) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next Steps *_Item 7: UPDATE - Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman Proposal and Defensive Registrations Discussion (20 Minutes) _* *__* ICANN's CEO has requested GNSO Council input on the _Strawman Proposal <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chehade-to-robinson-04dec12-en.pdf>_ recently developed through the TMCH related implementation discussions, which has been posted for public comment. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30nov12-en.htm. ICANN's CEO additionally requested Council input on the joint proposal from the Business Constituency/Intellectual Property Constituency (BC/IPC) for a "limited preventative registration mechanism" which is also currently available for public comment. A subsequent note (19 December 2012) from ICANN's CEO clarified the desired deadline for input to be no later than 22 February 2013. Related to this discussion is the Staff briefing paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287) to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level, in response to a previous request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requested the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council is to continue to discuss: (i) a response to the ICANN CEOs request, and (ii) to consider whether to undertake any additional work related to the BC/IPC proposal and/or the Staff briefing paper, on the topic of second level defensive registrations. 7.1 Update 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next Steps *_Item 8: UPDATE - Response to the GAC Letter (20 minutes)_* The GAC has sent a letter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-robinson-28nov12-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council with regard to the initiation of a PDP on the IGO/INGO issue, and specifically requesting a rationale for undertaking a PDP i.e. an explanation as to why GNSO believes this issue should be evaluated through a PDP rather than simply executed as an implementation process. The Council has sent an initial response and now needs to move ahead with developing a full response. This is a discussion item. 8.1 Update 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps *_Item 9: INFORMATION & DISCUSION_*_-- *Policy vs. Implementation (20 minutes)*_ The recent letter from the GAC as well as activities relating to work on the Trademark Clearinghouse, highlights a broader issue regarding the boundary between policy development and implementation work as well as the effective integration of policy development and integration work from the outset. Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there is an interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same time, ICANN Staff has published a paper (include link when available) that is intended to facilitate further community discussions on this topic. 9.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) 9.2 Discussion 9.3 Next steps *__* *_Item 10: UPDATE - ATRT2 Developments (5 minutes) _* The call for applicants to serve on the next Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) has been extended until 14 January 2013. (See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03dec12-en.htm) An update on the process and next steps to provide GNSO Council endorsements of applicants will be provided. This is a discussion item. 10.1 Update (Wolfe-Ulrich Knoben) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next steps *_Item 11: 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:** a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. 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. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. 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. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." *Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (**GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4 <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>**) *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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 18:00 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel (IST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 22:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 - next day Beijing/Hong Kong, China _(HKT_ ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 - next day Perth, Australia (WST <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 -- next day Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 -- next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Save the date: BC Members Pre Council call: Monday, Jan. 14th, 2013 @ 11 am EST
by Benedetta Rossi Jan. 7, 2013

Jan. 7, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please save the date for the upcoming BC members Pre-Council call taking place on *Monday, January 14th, 2013 at 11 am EST (4 pm UTC / 3 pm CET) for 90 minutes. * Dial in details, agenda and calendar invitation will follow as soon as possible. Please let me know if you need a dial out. Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Board Minutes just pubkished. Meetings Buenos Aires, Singapore, London (England)
by Chris Chaplow Dec. 24, 2012

Dec. 24, 2012

Dear Members, Wishing you all the best for 2013 (and 2014) >From board minutes just published http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20dec12-en.htm#2. a0 Resolved (2012.12.20.09), the Board accepts the proposal of the staff, and approves that the ICANN 2013 Latin America/Caribbean Meeting shall be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina from 17-21 November 2013, with a budget not to exceed US$2.37M, and that the Buenos Aires meeting be designated as ICANN's 2013 Annual General Meeting Resolved (2012.12.20.20), the Board directs the President and CEO to make the necessary arrangements to conduct the 2014 ICANN Meetings in Singapore, London (England) and a city to be identified in North America. 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.

1 0

New gTLD Weekly Update (21 December 2012) | ICANN New gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 24, 2012

Dec. 24, 2012

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-21dec12-en FyI Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

1 0

Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

ABOUT ADVERTISE DI JOBS (FREE) DI PRO RSS Feed Twitter Feed RECENT POSTS Surprise! Verisign to increase .net fees Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa complaint Amazon, Uniregistry, Verisign… here’s who won the new gTLDs lottery Santa Claus shows up to ICANN new gTLD raffle Another deadline missed in registrar contract talks ICANN drops .jobs shut-down threat Chehade kicks off massive Whois review ICM seizes on Google’s porn algorithm change Seven new gTLD applications withdrawn, two after GAC Early Warnings Deloitte confirmed as first Trademark Clearinghouse provider Ombudsman probing secretive Trademark Clearinghouse meetings New gTLD lottery tickets now on sale Van Gelder leaves NBT, goes solo with consulting biz List your job openings for free on DI Jobs Go Daddy gets its fourth CEO in a year YouPorn owner arrested in tax evasion probe Ombudsman asks DCA to simmer down after .africa conflict of interest complaint Russian iTunes Store infiltrated by .xxx banners after snafu [NSFW] .africa gTLD applicant caught using fake identity TLDH hires ICANN’s former new gTLDs head Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa complaint Kevin Murphy, December 19, 2012, 01:40:48 (UTC), Domain Registries ICANN directors Mike Silber and Chris Disspain have updated their official statements of interest — used to identify potential conflicts on the board — after a complaint from a .africa applicant. The new SOI statement more clearly specifies the relationship between South African ccTLD policymaker ZADNA — for which Silber acts as treasurer — and Uniforum, which has applied for the .africa gTLD. It also gives a bit more information about Disspain’s employer, .au policymaker AuDA, and ARI Registry Services, which is providing the back-end registry services for dozens of new gTLD applicants. Here’s Silber’s new SOI summary, with the relevant new text highlighted: Member of the Management Committee and Treasurer of the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) South Africa. He is also, a Director and Treasurer of the .za Domain Name Authority, the ccTLD administrator for .za. The .za Domain Name Authority has concluded an arms-length operating agreement with Uniforum t/a the .za Central Registry for Uniforum to operate the .za registry. Under the agreement, Uniforum will collect and pay transaction fees to .za Domain Name Authority. Uniforum is acting as the registry service provider for various new gTLD applicants. Here’s Disspain’s, again with my emphasis: Director and CEO of .au Domain Administration Limited, the .au ccTLD manager; .au has sponsorship agreement with ICANN under which .au pays ICANN a yearly amount based on the amount of names under management. Former Officer of ICANN, Paul Levins, is a Director of .au Domain Administration Limited. .au Domain Administration Limited licenses AusRegistry Pty Ltd to run the registry for the second level names in .au. Under the Registry License agreement, AusRegistry pays fees to auDA; companies affiliated with AusRegistry are affiliated with new gTLD applications. AusRegistry is technically ARI’s parent, but they share many of the same senior executives. The updated statement comes shortly after a complaint filed with ICANN’s Ombudsman by .africa applicant DotConnectAfrica about Silber and Disspain’s alleged conflicts of interest over the gTLD. While the indirect connection between Silber and DCA’s rival .africa applicant Uniforum is clear, it was not obvious to Ombudsman Chris LaHatte what Disspain’s conflict was supposed to be. LaHatte found no actions that constituted conflicts of interest from either director, but he appeared to nudge the board to providing fuller disclosure, which is what seems to have happened here. Related posts (automatically generated): Ombudsman asks DCA to simmer down after .africa conflict of interest complaint Unbelievably, .africa will be contested Sedari working on .africa gTLD bid Tagged: .au, .za, auda, conflicts of interest, ICANN, new gTLDs, zadna ADD YOUR COMMENT Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Web site (optional) Submit Comment Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting. RECENT COMMENTS mrwin: To entrust a profit seeking entity to run such an important system is not good.... read more Acro: Since the world ends in 2 days, that's pointless. :D... read more Project dotVinum: Yep, so we can see .Vin listed :-)... read more fred krueger: i would like to see the reverse analysis -- of those uncontested non-IDN apps, which ones ended up, for example, with pr... read more Jean Guillon: .RESTAURANT ? Hey Dan: Restaurant = Food = Culture = France I've had phone calls about it already.... read more Go Figure: Of the 66 geos, 30 are over 1000. In other words, about half the geos won't see the light of day until the latter half ... read more Go Figure: Overall, looks like the geos drew the longer straws. Not unexpected.... read more Domain Dan: What's all the fighting about? It's like rearranging chair on the desk of the Titanic if you ask me. Clearly, all of t... read more Tom G: killer analysis though, I can see why the DI PRO subscription could pay off.... read more Tom G: Donuts scored well with uncontested TLDs in the first couple hundred, including some IDNS.... read more © 2010-2012 TLD Research Ltd

2 1

2013 Upcoming Public Comments List
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 18, 2012

Dec. 18, 2012

Please note the proposed approach regarding planning 'forecasting' of public comment issues. I might take this opportunity to mention that the BC has asked for a modification in the public comment period to provide more time on initial, a time frame for summary, and also a mechanism that allows for entities to note that they cannot meet the sort time frame on initial, and need to use Reply for their full comments. I have asked to put this topic on the Intercessional discussion with NCPH participants at end of January, but we will need your guidance, as you are all users of public comment processes at ICANN. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair From: filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:31:24 -0800 CC: sally.costerton(a)icann.org Subject: [Soac-infoalert] 2013 Upcoming Public Comments List Dear Community Leaders,Following the process (attached) that is now in place since June 2011 (based on the implementation of ATRT recommendation 21), it is time to ask for your input for the 2013 Upcoming Public Comments list to be published at:http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/upcoming-en.htmWe are seeking your input about topics that your groups are planning on originating a public comment period on at any time in 2013 to populate the new list, if any.Publishing and maintenance of such a list helps raising early awareness about the upcoming issues among the ICANN community. Please send these topics to Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org> until 31 January 2013, using template attached. Following the process, after receiving your input, the list for 2013 will be published in February 2013 and there will be another call for updates on it after the meeting in Beijing.Kind regards,Filiz YilmazSr Dir Participation and EngagementICANN _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Update to the BC on SCI activities
by john＠crediblecontext.com Dec. 17, 2012

Dec. 17, 2012

1 0

Update to the BC on SCI activities
by Ron Andruff Dec. 17, 2012

Dec. 17, 2012

Dear colleagues, Following Wolf-Ulrich Knoben's (ISP Constituency) two years as Chair of the Standing Committee for Improvements Implementation (SCI), yours truly has been elected to the post. I have a one year term with an option to extend for a second year, at which time I become term limited and cannot continue as Chair. Avri Doria (NCUC) remains as Vice Chair, a position she held under Wolf-Ulrich's tenure. By way of background, the SCI is the only standing committee of the GNSO and it is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) during the most recent (2010) GNSO review. Recommendations to implement operational changes, and recommendations for all process changes needed to meet the requirements contained in the "Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group On GNSO Improvements", which are to be implemented with approval and under the guidance of the Council, once handed down by the SCI. In simple terms, the SCI is responsible for knocking off rough edges to make sure that new policy pegs fit in their round holes. As I will be taking over the Chair of the SCI on Thursday, December 20th, I wanted to provide the BC membership with a short summary of activities the SCI has addressed and what is on the calendar for your review. This list is in 'shorthand' so please contact me directly should you have any questions or input. Open Items: 1. Suspension of a PDP: Revised language for the footnote is being discussed. No consensus on a revision but 90% complete. (Expect to finalize on our upcoming call and will report back with the specifics on the issue and its resolution as soon as this has been resolved.) 2. Working Group Survey: The survey is intended to gather feedback on improving the effectiveness and outputs of PDP Working Groups. Currently under review by the SCI members and the deadline for SCI member testing is 19 December. Staff will compile results for 20 December SCI meeting. Recent Actions: 1. Chair and Vice Chair Election: Glen (election officer) sent the ballot to the SCI members and alternates. The poll was open for one week. -- COMPLETED: Ron Andruff, Chair; Avri Doria, Vice-Chair 2. Deferral of Motions: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. There is no need for a motion. -- COMPLETED: Wolf-Ulrich sent the results to the Council on 13 Dec 2012. No further action unless requested by Council. 3. Raising an Issue: SCI members agreed that the SCI will only take on issues raised by the GNSO Council, which is currently the practice. We will maintain the status quo and review this matter again in one year. -- COMPLETED: Wolf-Ulrich sent the results to the Council on 13 Dec 2012. No further action unless requested by Council. 4. Suspension of a PDP: SCI members will review the proposed revised footnote language that discusses how the community and Board will be informed of a suspension. -- UNDER DISCUSSION: No consensus yet on revised language. 5. Working Group Survey: SCI members will review the Working Group Guidelines and take the Survey (sent via a separate email) by COB Wednesday, 19 December. Julie will compile the survey results and any comments and provide an update at the meeting on 20 December. -- IN PROCESS: SCI members are requested to take the survey and provide comments. Julie will compile results for discussion on 20 December As always, if any BC members have thoughts or concerns regarding the SCI, please advise me, or our alternate rep, Angie Graves. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.

1 0

State Dept WCIT Briefing/ITR Signatories
by Phil Corwin Dec. 17, 2012

Dec. 17, 2012

Here is a link to US Ambassador Terry Kramer's December 13th Press Briefing at the conclusion of the Dubai WCIT meeting -- http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2012/202040.htm "Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions. We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through multi-stakeholder organizations." And here is a link to the list of the ITR signatories, as well as a map showing signing and abstaining nations - Who Signed The ITU WCIT Treaty... And Who Didn't<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-t…> - interesting to note that the next two ICANN meetings will take place in nations, China and South Africa, which are now officially on record as favoring government control over Internet governance rather than ICANN's multi-stakeholder model. 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 Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

RAA Negotiations Update - December 2012
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 16, 2012

Dec. 16, 2012

BC Members: FYI https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-14dec12-en.htmRAA Negotiations Update – December 201214 December 2012Over many months of negotiations, ICANN and the Registrars have made significant progress in negotiating the 12 recommendations from law enforcement authorities on improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. At ICANN's October 2012 meeting in Toronto, the negotiation teams described the agreements in principle on 11 of the 12 key law enforcement-recommended improvements, including the establishment of an abuse point of contact at each registrar; enhanced requirements to maintain updated information with ICANN; and robust data retention requirements. The documents posted in advance of the Toronto meeting also reflect the progress made with respect to the amendment topics proposed by the GNSO and ALAC. On one of the more complex items within the negotiations – the institution of validation and verification requirements on Whois data submitted by registrants – much progress has been made towards outlining an initial Whois verification process. However, a fundamental area of difference still remains between ICANN and the registrars, and agreement in principle has not been reached on this remaining topic.ICANN and the registrars have jointly initiated work on the development of a strawman for a Proxy/Privacy Service Provider Accreditation Program. The working team hosted a session on this topic at ICANN's Public Meeting in Toronto to start soliciting community input into what such a program should encompass.While much progress has been made on the recommendations provided by law enforcement, the GNSO and the ALAC, additional items remain for ICANN and the registrars to discuss. Both ICANN and the registrars have additional proposed changes which have not yet been negotiated. As previously discussed, it has been ICANN's position that the negotiations on key topics within the law enforcement recommendations need to come to resolution prior to concluding negotiations on these additional areas.In Toronto, ICANN's new President and CEO, Fadi Chehadé, announced to the community that the changes to the RAA are one of his top priorities, and assured the community of his focus on this work. While in Toronto, an ambitious schedule was set out for the completion of the RAA negotiations, including the posting of a proposed RAA for public comment before the end of 2012. Since the Toronto meeting, the President and CEO has been working closely with ICANN staff to gain a deeper understanding of the RAA negotiation topics. The substantial amount of work spent on the Trademark Clearinghouse for the New gTLD Program as well as the organizational work to meet the operational excellence goals has pushed the RAA negotiations into December. While the registrars and ICANN explored potential dates for negotiation in December 2012, both sides have agreed that between holidays, difficult travel schedules and the ICANN Prioritization Draw for New gTLDs, a December meeting is not feasible. Therefore, negotiations will resume in January 2013, and the anticipated date for publication of a draft RAA for community comment will be announced in January as well. ICANN thanks the registrars for their continued engagement in this negotiation process. ---------------------------------

1 0