- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

FW: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

Forwarded on behalf of Eberhard Lisse. From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Reply-To: "el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>" <el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:04 AM To: Sabine Dolderer <dolderer(a)denic.de<mailto:dolderer@denic.de>> Cc: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org>>, "'cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:'cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org>'" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>>, "'ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:'ccnso-members(a)icann.org>'" <ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members Sabine, I totally disagree. There has been cross constituency participation all along and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in any way. However perspective often helps. And, nothing could be further from the desirable than shutting down discussion about something like this on any list. Gabi, as I can't post the Council list, please post it there. el On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote: Hello Gabi, we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy developements during the last couple of weeks "to the ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO" and I am not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. >From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to our collegues from the gNSO. Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of their individual organisation but to avoid further misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for that discussions. Best Sabine

3 2

Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

Dear all, The GNSO is inviting the ccTLD Community to join a new working group on the Protection of Certain International Organisation names in all GTLDs. For more information and instructions on how to participate, see below. Kind regards, Gabi === http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29oct12-en.htm Call for Volunteers: IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members Date: 29 October 2012 Introduction At its meeting on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. (see 20121017-2<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-2>). The GNSO Council decided at this meeting that a group of volunteers should now be convened to draft the charter for the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Task of the Drafting Team The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working Group on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. The Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>: Working Group identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Upon completion of the Charter by the Drafting Team, the Working Group will then begin execution of the Charter. Volunteers If you are interested to participate, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>. You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest<http://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> in order to participate. It is proposed that the group meet each Wednesday at 18:00 UTC for two hours. Background Information on the Issue The ICANN Board has requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and the GAC on whether special protections should be afforded for the names and acronyms of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement ("RCRC"), the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") and/or International Government Organizations ("IGOs"). In September 2011, the GAC sent advice to the GNSO with a proposal for granting second level protections based upon the protections afforded to IOC/RCRC at the first level during the initial round of new gTLD applications, and that such protections are permanent. As a result of the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed and created a set of recommendations for protecting the IOC/RCRC names at the second level of the initial round new gTLDs, including the initiation of an "expedited PDP" to determine appropriate permanent protections for the RCRC and IOC names. The latest inquiry to examine the issue of protecting IGO names emerged as a result of a request from the ICANN Board in response to letters received from the OECD and other IGOs in December 2011. Specifically, IGOs are seeking ICANN approval of protections at the top level that, at a minimum, are similar to those afforded to the RCRC and IOC in the Applicant Guidebook. In addition, IGOs are seeking a pre-emptive mechanism to protect their names at the second level. On 11 March 2012, the ICANN Board formally requested that the GNSO Council and the GAC provide policy advice on the IGO's request. The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN Staff on 1 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…) and in this report a number of issues are outlined that will need further consideration during the PDP. The GNSO Council approved the IGO-INGO PDP at its 17 October 2012 meeting. Recommended Reading for Volunteers * Final Issue Report on the Protection of IGO Names<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…> * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: ccNSO Counclors - FYI
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

Forwarded on behalf of Ron Sherwood. From: Ron Sherwood <ron(a)vitechnicalservices.com<mailto:ron@vitechnicalservices.com>> Date: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:15 AM To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org>> Subject: ccNSO Counclors - FYI Dear ccNSO Councilors: For those who may not yet have seen the statement by VeriSign CEO Jim Bizdos, titled: ".Com Pricing Through 2018 Uncertain as USG Reviews Renewal Contract" I enclosed the following link the the ICA Report. http://internetcommerce.org/USG_Review_DotCom_Renewal [Courtesy of the ALAC list] Ron Sherwood, (ccNSO/ALAC Liaison)

1 0

ccNSO @ ICANN Toronto
by Kristina Nordstrom Oct. 26, 2012

Oct. 26, 2012

Dear all, Please find below a little potpourri of the Toronto meeting from the usual ccNSO perspective. See you in Beijing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDuy-j0AGKs&feature=plcp Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

ccNSO Meeting Survey Results
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

Dear all, The ccNSO members meeting day 1&2 surveys are now closed. I am really pleased to note that 50 people replied to the meeting day 1 survey and 41 to the meeting day 2 survey, which is a record for both days! Results ccNSO Meeting Day 1: http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=uIE1uj_2fLQl_2fMyIOcsljH9om9OSk1lLTs… Results ccNSO Meeting Day 2: http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=HxqZP4OttsfpbZUICcE0cxt2wcYNzqRLpNEw… Many thanks to all of you who took your time to reply – your input is very valuable! Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

Call for Volunteers: 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

Dear all, The GNSO is seeking volunteers to a "thick" WHOIS PDP Working Group and is also reaching out to ccTLDs to join this group. If you are interested, see further information below. Kind regards, Gabi === http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23oct12-en.htm Date: 23 October 2012 In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) that has been chartered to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future. What This Group Will Do As part of its deliberations on this issue, the PDP WG is expected, at a minimum, to consider the following elements as detailed in the 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf>: * Response consistency: a 'thick' Registry can dictate the labeling and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be applied. * Stability: in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a 'thick' registry. * Accessibility: is the provision of Whois information at the registry level under the 'thick' Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a 'thin' model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual property owners? * Impact on privacy and data protection: how would 'thick' Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? * Cost implications: what are the cost implications of a transition to 'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated? * Synchronization/migration: what would be the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to 'thick' WHOIS as well as ongoing operations? * Authoritativeness: what are the implications of a 'thin' Registry possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should consider the term "authoritative" in both the technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue. * Competition in registry services: what would be the impact on competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois service using the 'thick' Whois model – would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services? * Existing Whois Applications: What, if anything, are the potential impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if 'thick' WHOIS is required for all gtLDs? * Data escrow: 'thick' Whois might obviate the need for the registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars. * Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements: 'thick' Whois could make the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant. For further details and requirements, see the WG Charter<https://community.icann.org/x/H4EoAg>. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. WGs typically meet once a week by telephone for a minimum of one hour. The meetings of the WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the 'thick' Whois PDP 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 WG is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>. In addition, the WG is expected to follow the procedures outlined in the GNSO PDP Manual<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf>. How to Join The 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. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20%27thick%27%20Whois%20PDP%20Working%20Group> (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>). Background ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through Registry Agreements (RAs) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for the generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries. Registries have historically satisfied their Whois obligations under two different models. The two models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are maintained. WHOIS contains two kinds of data about a domain name; one set of data is associated with the domain name (this information includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in the Registry database, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service), and a second set of data that is associated with the registrant of the domain name. In a thin registration model the Registry only collects the information associated with the domain name from the Registrar. The Registry in turn publishes that information along with maintaining certain status information at the Registry level. Registrars maintain data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor. In a thick registration model the Registry collects both sets of data (domain name and registrant) from the Registrar and in turn publishes that data via Whois. As recommended by the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council asked ICANN staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs. The Council requested that the Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process consider a possible requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs in the context of IRTP and also consider any positive and/or negative effects likely to occur outside of IRTP that should be taken into account when deciding whether to require "thick" Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. ICANN staff submitted the Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council for consideration on 2 February 2012. At its meeting in Costa Rica last March, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process on "thick" Whois. However, considering the workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council on 12 April resolved to delay the formation of a drafting team to develop a charter until December 2012. The Council reconsidered that decision at its meeting in Prague in June 2012, and decided to move forward with the PDP. A drafting team was formed to develop a charter which was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 17 October 2012. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Dial in details Informal Council Call 23 October
by Kristina Nordstrom Oct. 23, 2012

Oct. 23, 2012

Dear all, Please find below the dial in details for the informal Council Call on 23 October at 11:30 UTC. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 If you need dial out assistance for this call, please let me know as soon as possible. Kind regards, Kristina

2 3

ccNSO Meeting Highlights Toronto
by Kristina Nordstrom Oct. 23, 2012

Oct. 23, 2012

Dear all, The ccNSO Meeting Highlights from Toronto are now posted here: http://ccnso.icann.org/ https://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/presentation-ccnso-highlig… Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Mary Wong subscribed to ccNSO Council email list
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

Dear all, I have now added our new NomCom appointee Mary Wong to the Council email list. Mary will formally take seat on the ccNSO Council straight after the Council meeting in Toronto. Welcome, Mary! Below is a list of all people that currently are subscribed to the ccNSO Council email list. Kind regards, Gabi Councillors Victor Abboud, .ec Becky Burr, NomCom appointee Lesley Cowley, uk Keith Davidson, .nz Fernando Espana, .us Sokol Haxhiu, NomCom appointee Byron Holland, .ca Hiro Hotta, jp Juhani Juselius, .fi Young-Eum Lee, .kr Roelof Meijer, .nl Vika Mpisane, .za Paulos Nyirenda, .mw Souleymane Oumtanaga, .ci Dotty Sparks de Blanc, .vi Rolando Toledo, .pe Margarita Valdes, ci Mary Wong, NomCom appointee Hong Xue, NomCom appointee ICANN Board Appointees Chris Disspain, au Mike Silber, .za Regional Organisations Carolina Aguerre, LACTLD Barrak Otieno, AfTLD Peter Van Roste, CENTR Jian Zhang, APTLD Liaisons Rafik Dammak, GNSO liaison to ccNSO Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC liaison to ccNSO Han Chuan Lee, ccNSO liaison to GNSO Ron Sherwood, ccNSO liaison to ALAC Personal Assistants Jacqueline Campbell, PA to Lesley Cowley Lynn Gravel, PA to Byron Holland Nelly Konesha, PA to Vika Mpisane Staff Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO David Olive, ICANN Kristina Nordström, ccNSO Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO

1 1

ICANN Board Meeting Agenda 18 October 2012
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

Dear all, The ICANN Board agenda for the meeting on 18 October is now available at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-18oct12-en.htm Kind regards, Gabi

1 0