- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Council Minutes 23 January
by Kristina Nordstrom Jan. 30, 2014

Jan. 30, 2014

Dear all, Please find attached the Council minutes from 23 January 2014 and let me know before 5 February if you wish to make any amendments. Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Triage Recommendation on Request 4-2014: GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group
by Gabriella Schittek Jan. 29, 2014

Jan. 29, 2014

Dear Councillors, Below is a request for input, which was sent directly to Byron last week from the GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group. The entire email is pasted in below the summary. The triage group recommendation is two-fold: : 1) A staff member should be requested to reply, on behalf of the ccNSO Council, that the ccNSO as a group does not have a point of view on this matter; 2) In the reply, it should also be noted, that whilst the questions can be forwarded to the ccTLD Community for individual input, chances are quite small that any input actually will be received. Suggest that the Working Group puts up the questions into a survey tool to increase chances of obtaining replies. Let me know if you have any objections to the recommendations by Friday, 31 January 2014. Thanks! Gabi == Topic: Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Originator: GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group Summary of request: The GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group is asking other SO/ACs for help to define which topics they should look into during their work. See below for full explanation. Date received: 23 January 2014 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 28 February 2014 Recommended action, if any: 1) A staff member should be requested to reply, on behalf of the ccNSO Council, that the ccNSO as a group does not have a point of view on this matter; 2) In the reply, it should also be noted, that whilst the questions can be forwarded to the ccTLD Community for individual input, chances are quite small that any input actually will be received. Suggest that the Working Group puts up the questions into a survey tool to increase chances of obtaining replies. Expertise needed, if any: Legal, managerial Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low === Dear SO/AC Chair - Dear Byron, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues. As part of its efforts to obtain input from the broader ICANN Community at an early stage of its deliberations, the Working Group that has begun to explore questions related to these issues is looking for any input or information that may help inform our deliberations. Below you will find an overview of the issues that the WG has been assigned to address in its charter. We would appreciate it very much if you would examine the items and provide any input that your group may have to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> ) by Friday 28 February 2014. If you cannot submit your input by that date, but your group would like to contribute, please let us know when we can expect to receive your contribution so that we can plan accordingly. While we would like your thoughts on all items, responses to a subset still will be helpful. Please feel free also to suggest modifications to or additional questions that your group believes useful for the WG to address. Your input will be valuable for informing the WG as we begin our work. We have included a list of relevant definitions at the end of this document in the hope that they will be of assistance to your group in providing input. For further background information on our WG¹s activities to date and to follow our work as we move forward, see https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg <https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg> . With best regards, Don Blumenthal, Chair of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group QUESTIONS FOR WHICH THE WG WAS CHARTERED AND IS SEEKING INPUT This RAA PDP Working Group (WG) was created to provide the GNSO Council with policy recommendations regarding the issues identified during the 2013 RAA negotiations, including recommendations made by law enforcement and GNSO working groups,that were not addressed during the 2013 RAA negotiations but are otherwise suited for a PDP. These issues focus on theaccreditation of Privacy & Proxy Services. As part of its deliberations on the matter, the RAA PDP WG was asked to, at a minimum, consider those issues detailed in the StaffBriefing Paper <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/negotiations-conclusion-16sep13-en.pdf> published on 16 September 2013 and included in the WG Charter (seehttps://community.icann.org/display/gnsopnpsrvaccrdtwg/WG+Charter <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsopnpsrvaccrdtwg/WG+Charter> ). The WG has organized the questions in the hope that it adds clarity. I. MAIN ISSUES 1. What, if any, are the types of Standard Service Practices that should be adopted and published by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers? 2. Should ICANN distinguish between privacy and proxy services for the purpose of the accreditation process? 3. What are the contractual obligations, if any, that if unfulfilled would justify termination of customer access by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers? 4. What types of services should be covered, and would be the forms of non-compliance that would trigger cancellation or suspension of registrations? 5. What are the effects of the privacy and proxy service specification contained in the 2013 RAA? Have these new requirements improved WHOIS quality, registrant contactability and service usability? 6. What should be the contractual obligations of ICANN accredited registrars with regard to accredited privacy/proxy service providers? Should registrars be permitted to knowingly accept registrations where the registrant is using unaccredited service providers that are however bound to the same standards as accredited service providers? II. MAINTENANCE 1. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to label WHOIS entries to clearly show when a registration is made through a privacy/proxy service? 2. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to conduct periodic checks to ensure accuracy of customer contact information; and if so, how? 3. What rights and responsibilities should customers of privacy/proxy services have? What obligations should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers have in managing these rights and responsibilities? Clarify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply. 4. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers distinguish between domain names used for commercial vs. personal purposes? Specifically, is the use of privacy/proxy services appropriate when a domain name is registered for commercial purposes? 5. Should there be a difference in the data fields to be displayed if the domain name is registered or used for a commercial purpose, or by a commercial entity instead of a natural person? 6. Should the use of privacy/proxy services be restricted only to registrants who are private individuals using the domain name for non-commercial purposes? III. CONTACT 1. What measures should be taken to ensure contactability and responsiveness of the providers? 2. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to maintain dedicated points of contact for reporting abuse? If so, should the terms be consistent with the requirements applicable to registrars under Section 3.18 of the RAA? 3. Should full WHOIS contact details for ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required? 4. What are the forms of alleged malicious conduct, if any, that would be covered by a designated published point of contact at an ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service provider? IV. RELAY 1. What, if any, are the baseline minimum standardized relay processes that should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers? 2. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to forward to the customer all allegations of illegal activities they receive relating to specific domain names of the customer? V. REVEAL 1. What, if any, are the baseline minimum standardized reveal processes that should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers? 2. Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to reveal customer identities for the specific purpose of ensuring timely service of cease and desist letters? 3. What forms of alleged malicious conduct, if any, and what evidentiary standard would be sufficient to trigger such disclosure? What specific alleged violations, if any, would be sufficient to trigger such publication? 4. What safeguards must be put in place to ensure adequate protections for privacy and freedom of expression? 5. What safeguards or remedies should be available in cases where publication is found to have been unwarranted? 6. What circumstances, if any, would warrant access to registrant data by law enforcement agencies? 7. What clear, workable, enforceable and standardized processes should be adopted by ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy services in order to regulate such access (if such access is warranted)? LIST OF RELEVANT DEFINITIONS (1) Privacy & Proxy Services The following definitions are those used by the GNSO in the various WHOIS studies it commissioned between 2010-2012 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-working-definitions-study-terms-18 feb09.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-working-definitions-study-terms-18 feb09.pdf> ): · Privacy services hide customer details from going into WHOIS. Privacy service providers, which may include registrars and resellers, may offer alternate contact information and mail forwarding services while not actually shielding the domain name registrant¹s identity. By shielding the user in these ways, these services are promoted as a means of protecting personal privacy, free speech and human rights and avoiding personal data misuse. · Proxy services protect users¹ privacy by having a third-party register the name. The third-party is most often the proxy service itself. The third-party allows the user to access and use the domain name through a separate agreement or some other arrangement directly with the user. Proxy service providers may include web design, law, and marketing firms; web hosts, registrar subsidiaries, resellers and individuals. NOTE: The 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement contains a temporary specification relating to Privacy & Proxy Services, which refers to these services as follows (http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/approved-with-specs-27jun1 3-en.pdf <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/approved-with-specs-27jun1 3-en.pdf> ): 1.1 "P/P Customer" means, regardless of the terminology used by the P/P Provider, the licensee, customer, beneficial user, beneficiary, or other recipient of Privacy Services and Proxy Services. 1.2 "Privacy Service" is a service by which a Registered Name is registered to its beneficial user as the Registered Name Holder, but for which alternative, reliable contact information is provided by the P/P Provider for display of the Registered Name Holder's contact information in the Registration Data Service (Whois) or equivalent services. 1.3 "Proxy Service" is a service through which a Registered Name Holder licenses use of a Registered Name to the P/P Customer in order to provide the P/P Customer use of the domain name, and the Registered Name Holder's contact information is displayed in the Registration Data Service (Whois) or equivalent services rather than the P/P Customer's contact information. 1.4 "P/P Provider" or "Service Provider" is the provider of Privacy/Proxy Services, including Registrar and its Affiliates, as applicable. (2) Relay & Reveal Requests The following descriptions are taken from the GNSO¹s Terms of Reference for a proposed Proxy & Privacy Relay & Reveal Study in 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-proxy-privacy-relay-reveal-studies -tor-29sep10-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-proxy-privacy-relay-reveal-studies -tor-29sep10-en.pdf> ): * For many domains, Registered Name Holders can be reached directly at addresses obtained from WHOIS. However, for Privacy/Proxy-registered domains, Registered Name Holders or third party licensees cannot be reached directly via WHOIS- published addresses. Instead, communication relay requests may be sent to the Privacy/Proxy service provider published in WHOIS, or attempted using addresses obtained from other sources, websites or communications associated with the domain. For many domains (including those registered via Privacy services), the Registered Name Holder's identity is published directly in WHOIS. However, for domains registered via Proxy services, the name of the licensee is not published in WHOIS; third party licensees can typically only be identified by asking the Proxy to reveal the licensee's identity, given reasonable evidence of actionable harm. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

2 1

Blog post on ICANN's Strategic Initiatives
by Gabriella Schittek Jan. 29, 2014

Jan. 29, 2014

Dear all, Thresesa Swinehart, ICANN's Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy, has published a blog post on ICANN's Strategic Initiatives: http://blog.icann.org/2014/01/update-icanns-strategic-initiatives/ Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

[Triage] Request 3-2014 Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies
by Gabriella Schittek Jan. 24, 2014

Jan. 24, 2014

Dear Councillors, See the Triage committee's recommendation below on the request for input to the Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. If you do not agree on the recommendation, please send your suggestion for action to the Council email list by Tuesday, 28 January 2014. Kind regards, Gabi == Topic: Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies Originator: ICANN Summary of request: ICANN is reviewing what changes, if any, should be made to the current model of Trusted Community Representative participation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tcr-dnssec-key-signing-21jan14-e n.htm Date received: 22 February 2014 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 11 February 2014 Recommended action, if any: Post to email lists for information (done) Expertise needed, if any: Variuos Date of submission to Council: 24 January 2014 Last date of Council decision: 28 January 2014 Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low

1 0

Webinar on Strategy Panel on ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation
by Gabriella Schittek Jan. 24, 2014

Jan. 24, 2014

Dear all, On Friday, 31 January, ICANN is hosting a webinar on the Strategy Panel on ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation. If you are interested in joining, see http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23jan14-en.htm for further details. Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

Council Recording 23 January
by Kristina Nordstrom Jan. 23, 2014

Jan. 23, 2014

Dear all, The recording from the Council call today on 23 January can now be found here: http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-20140123-en.mp3 Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Reminder: Dial in details Council Call today 23 January 12:00 UTC
by Kristina Nordstrom Jan. 23, 2014

Jan. 23, 2014

Dear all, The next Council Call will take place today 23 January at 12:00 UTC. Please find the dial in details below. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room. Kind regards, Kristina

5 4

Agenda and Draft Resolutions Council call 23 January 2014
by Bart Boswinkel Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

Dear all, Please find included the agenda and associated draft resolutions, if any. Kind regards, Bart Draft Agenda ccNSO Council Telephone Conference 23 January 2014 1) Apologies 2) Minutes and Actions 3) Internet Governance Fora Update 3.1 1 Net initiative (Mathieu Weill) 3.2 Brazil Meeting (Carolina Aguerre) 3.3 Fifth Panel (Byron Holland) 3.4 ccWG Internet Governance (Keith Davidson), 3.5 Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Organizations' Ecosystem (Debbie Monahan) 4) Appointment Co-Chair GNSO Working Group drafting charter for WG on Cross-Community Working Group Principles Background The ccNSO was invited (see letter from GNSO to ccNSO chair, 13 December 2013), to participate in a cross community effortto create a framework for ccWG’s and provide a co-chair of the WG. Draft Resolution The ccNSO Council resolves: 1. To participate in the new GNSO initiated cross-community drafting team as suggested, 2. To appoint Becky Burr as co-chair of this WG 3. To call for volunteers once the WG has been formally established The secretariat is requested to provide the appropriate assistance to this WG 5) ccNSO Travel Funding Background During the previous call some issues pertaining to the travel funding were raised, in particular whether the ccNSO liaisons (to ALAC and GNSO), should always be eligible for travel funding to ICANN meetings. To date the ccNSO is eligible for 12 slots per meeting, ALAC 27 slots and the GNSO at least 18 slots. In general, the ccNSO travel funding committee allocates a limited number of slots(on average 4 out of 12: 5 slots for members appointed Councilors, 3 NomCom appointed councillors), in accordance with the travel funding guideline as recently, 12 February 2013, amended (http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf) To date attendance of the f-2-f meetings of ALAC and the GNSO in person is not considered to be requirement (see http://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-liaisons-observers-13may08-en.pdf) Proposed next steps Revisit requirements of ccNSO appointed liaisons at the Council workshop as part of a general review of Guidelines adopted in 2008, and continue discussion on travel funding, after this has been clarified. 6) Implementations Recommendations Study Group Quorum Rule Background See preparatory material. Draft resolution Staff is requested to provide a schedule for implementation of the recommendations on the quorum rule changes as adopted earlier by the Council in the Bylaws (Article IX) and Rules and Guidelines of the ccNSO . This schedule should also take into account changes to the Rules and Guidelines resulting from required changes to the ICANN Bylaws, Article IX and Annex B (ccNSO Policy development Process) to implement the IDN ccPDP Recommendation (on inclusion of IDN ccTLD in the ccNSO). 7) Election Review Committee Final Report Background See Report included in Preparatory Materials Draft Resolution The ccNSO Council adopts the recommendations of its Election Review Committee: 1. The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to look into possibilities od developing a new voting system, which allows ach member to handle and update their own data and which is linked to a voting tool making it the voting much easier to handle. 2. The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to update the ccNSO Election Guidelines with the additional wording: “ Only ccNSO Primary or Secondary Contacts, as listed in the ccNSO Database, are eligle to nominate or second a candidate” in the appropriate section. 3. The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to update the ccNSO Election Guidelines with the additional wording: Self-Nominations or Secondments are not allowed” in the appropriate section. 4. The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to continue its activities on awareness raising campaigns, when necessary. The Council wholeheartedly thanks all members of the committee and in particular it chair Katrina Sataki, for its hard work in this area and closes the Election review Committee. 8) Council Updates 8.1 Chair Update 8.2 Vice-Chair Update 8.3 Councilors Update 8.4 Regional Organisations Update 8.5 Staff Update 9) Working Group and Other Updates 9.1 SOP Working Group (Roelof Meijer) 9.2 CRI Working Group (Survey results) 9.3 FoI Working Group (Keith Davidson) 9.4 ICANN Academy (Hong Xue) 10) Liaison Updates FYI 10.1 GNSO Liaison (Patrick Myles) 10.2 ALAC Liaison (Ron Sherwood) 11) Update Work Plan FYI See preparatory material. 12) Date of Next Meetings FYI 20 February 2014 12.00 UTC 19 March 2014 16.00 Local Singapore time 17 April 2014 12.00 UTC 13) Singapore Meetings FYI 12.1 Council Workshop Sunday 22 March 2014 (tentatively 10.00-14.00, agenda TBD) 12.2 Council preparatory meeting, Monday 23 March, 11.00- 12.00 local time. 12.3 ALAC-ccNSO Council Meeting, Monday 23 March 12.30-14.00 12.4 ccNSO-GNSO Council Meeting (tentatively) Monday 23 March 16.30-18.00 14) AOB

1 0

FYI: Updated list on action items from 10 December
by Kristina Nordstrom Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

Dear all, Please find below an updated list of the action items from the Council call on 10 December. Action 90-01: The Chair to inform the ICANN Secretary about the appointment of Chris Disspain for Board seat nr 11. Completed Action 90-02: The Secretariat to share the strawman for a cross-community working group on the use of names for countries and territories with the ALAC, GNSO and GAC. Completed Action 90-03: Katrina Sataki and the Secretariat to explain further on what the suggested changes to the bylaws would mean according to the Quorum Study Group recommendations Completed Action 90-04: The Secretariat to confirm the dates for future Council calls on the email list. Completed Action 90-05: The Secretariat to distribute the request for individual ccTLD input on the WHOIS expert study on the community email lists. Completed Action 90-06: The Secretariat to prepare a template to express support for the Geographic Regions Working Group Report and send out to the Council for approval and further submission. Completed Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Paper to Action 90-03
by Gabriella Schittek Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

Dear Councillors, Attached is a paper, which corresponds to Action 90-03 "Katrina and the Secretariat to explain further on what the suggested changes to the bylaws would mean according to the Quorum Study Group recommendations." You will see that the two first items listed directly relate to the action. Below these, we have also added further items, which we think need to be updated. We have listed what the issues are and which documents (Bylaws, Rules or Guidelines) need to be updated and how this needs to be done. You can find the Bylaws at http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IX The Rules at http://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines.htm All Guidelines are listed at http://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines.htm Kind regards, Gabi

1 0