October 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

RAA 3.7.4 as compliance tool to stop domain tasting - staff reponse
by Avri Doria Oct. 12, 2007

Oct. 12, 2007

Hi, Kurt Pritz sent me the following document and authorised me to send it on to the council. It is intended as an answer to Ross's questions about the use of RAA 3.7.4 as a possible method for constraining domain tasting. a.

4 3

GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 12, 2007

Oct. 12, 2007

Attached is the latest version of the proposed GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues. Please note that this version was created from the GNSO WG final draft by making the following two non-material edits: 1. An executive summary was added: a) to do this the first three paragraphs were made into an 'Introduction' section, including moving some text in the 3rd paragraph into the new 'Executive Summary'; b) the 'Executive Summary' was written by listing what appeared to be 'the most important points from the GNSO responses that are contained in the main body of the document'; c) the section containing the main body of the report (Parts A and B) was titled 'Responses to Issues Paper Questions'. 2. In Part A, paragraph 1, links were inserted to information about the IDN technical requirements and tests. For ease of identifying the revisions, they are highlighted in the attached file. In reviewing the Executive Summary I suggest asking the following questions: i) are all of the bulleted items points that should be included in the Executive Summary? and ii) are there any points not included that should be added? Note that the changes made in this version were sent to WG members for their review and comment and the changes made were result of the feedback received. If you have any questions, please let me know. This version of the draft comments should be used for discussion by the Council in L.A. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

1 0

replacement staff implementation notes on Whois attached
by Liz Gasster Oct. 12, 2007

Oct. 12, 2007

All, Attached please find a replacement of the Staff Implementation Notes on Whois that I distributed yesterday. Please use this version and discard the version previously circulated. Thanks, Liz Liz Gasster policy(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Domain Name Tasting
by cyrilchua＠atmdlaw.com.sg Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

Hello all I dropped out of the council call yesterday as I was not well. I am in favour of moving the domain name tasting issue to the policy development process. Cyril ALBAN TAY MAHTANI & DE SILVA < This message (including attachments) contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not to take any action in reliance on it nor to disseminate, distribute, publish or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please accept our apologies, delete all copies from your system and notify us at mail(a)atmdlaw.com.sg. Unless it relates to the official business of ATMD, any opinions or matters expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > ----- Original Message ----- From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" [gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org] Sent: 10/05/2007 10:49 AM ZE2 To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Domain Name Tasting [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dt-wg[at]icann.org] Dear All, The Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Domain Name Tasting can be directly viewed at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-… and is posted on page: http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/ This report will be discussed at the GNSO Council meeting on 11 October 2007 under Item 4: Domain Tasting report and decision on next step (20) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Registrar Transfer Policy Policy short-term planning group
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear All, At the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 11 October, pursuant to the Council resolution passed regarding the Registrar Transfer Policy Policy on 20 September, 2007 that the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" before the Council further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report." Ross Rader was appointed as the lead for the short-term planning group, Tim Ruiz and Tom Keller from the Registrar constituency, and Barbara Steele, proposed by Chuck Gomes volunteered to join the group. Olof Nordling and Karen Lentz were designated as the staff support for the group. The NCUC, IPC and ALAC indicated that they would name volunteers from their respective groups. This is a call for all constituencies to appoint a representative from their group. Please respond to the GNSO secretariat with this information by COB EST on Thursday 18 October 2007. Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS: Final Staff Overview and Staff Implementation Notes attached
by Liz Gasster Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

All: Attached please find the final Staff Overview of Recent WHOIS activity, which is due to the GNSO Council today, and the Staff Implementation Notes on the WHOIS Working Group Report, due 15 October. Comments are invited as specified in the resolution of 6 September (and reprinted in the attached Staff Overview). Best regards, Liz Liz Gasster policy(a)icann.org

1 0

Resolutions passed at the GNSO Council meeting 11 October 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the resolutions that were passed by the GNSO Council during the teleconference on 11 October 2007. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen ....................................................................... GNSO Council agenda 11 October 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-11oct07.shtml Resolution 1 The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles Resolution 2 The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Domain Name Tasting issue http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-… until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Considering the work of the Tasting Group
by Ross Rader Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

Avri - In order to properly consider the forthcoming recommendations of the working group on tasting, I would like to get some further data from staff as background information. Specifically, I would like to understand staff experience in enforcing clause 3.74 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. a) How many enforcement cases have been opened related to this clause in the last 5 years? b) How were these cases resolved? (identifying information is not necessary, but specifics would be useful) c) Does staff view 3.7.4 as an effective hedge against abuse of the AGP, if so, why? If not, why not? Would it be possible for you to pass this request along to staff? My instinct tells me that this is more of an enforcement failure than it is a policy failure and I'd like to understand this better before I vote on initiating a PDP. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492

3 4

Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted Working Group with the following Terms of Reference: 1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have been identified. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008. I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but thought this would be a good start for discussion. Kind regards, Mike Rodenbaugh

8 12

Re: [council] Proposed Resolution re Domain Tasting
by Thomas Keller Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

If we should go down the path of a PDP I would strongly suggest that we create a working group instead of taking it on as a Committee of the Whole. My reason for saying this is that I observed that council does not work very efficient if all of the policy work is conducted by this group. I would rather like to see the council evolve into a direction where we are more managing and guiding the overall GNSO policy process instead of developing policy recommendations ourself. Spreading the councilor resource to thin will not help to deal with all issues the GNSO has on its plate. As to the point of voting on this matter I have to agree with Robin that we are not in a hurry and that the decision on whether we invoke a PDP or not can easily wait until LA, which gives counilors (and I might speak for the registrars reps only in this respect) more time to consult with their constituencies. Best, tom Am 10.10.2007 schrieb Robin Gross: > > I'm concerned that we are moving too fast with this issue. I still > haven't seen why this is such a pressing concern and I haven't been > convinced a PDP is the right next step. I think more work needs to be > done to justify the need for a PDP rather than just assume that is the > next course and hurry to get there. > > Robin > > > > Ross Rader wrote: > > > > >presuming this goes down the PDP path, the council should attempt to > >do so within the confines of the process outlined in the bylaws. > > > >not to sound critical, but why does this keep getting ignored? > > > >The motion should be amended to strike the proposed timelines and > >instead use those found in the PDP as outlined in the bylaws. I'm not > >in favor of assuming, out of the gate, that we can't work within the > >timelines required by the PDP. If this is the case, then I'm likely > >inclined to believe that we have too much work in front of us to > >reasonably proceed along the timelines specified and we've prioritized > >our efforts badly. If we have too much work in front of us, then we > >shouldn't be voting in favor of every PDP request that comes down the > >pike. > > > >Avri Doria wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>Thanks for submitting the motion. > >> > >>My original planning for tomorrow's meeting had been to discuss the > >>report at this meting and then work our way toward a decision on a > >>PDP at the meeting on 31 Oct after the open comments. Would this be > >>acceptable or do you think we should vote on it as soon as tomorrow. > >>In any case, as things currently stand in the bylaws we cannot do a > >>working group as the main vehicle in a PDP, but need to either use a > >>Committee of the Whole or a Task Force. We can create Working > >>Groups for other purposes and as spins-off to investigate specific > >>issues but until the by-laws are changed, not for PDP processes. > >> > >>Please let me know if holding the vote on this motion until the open > >>meeting in LA is ok. > >> > >>thanks > >>a. > >> > >> > >> > >>On 9 okt 2007, at 02.40, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > >> > >>>I offer the following draft resolution, taken from the Final > >>>Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of > >>>the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, the Council hereby initiates a > >>>Policy Development Process, and commissions a duly constituted > >>>Working Group with the following Terms of Reference: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities > >>>that have been identified. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to > >>>impede domain tasting. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the likely > >>>impacts upon the Constituencies of various potential measures, and > >>>recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>This Working Group shall report back to Council by January 24, 2008. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I am sure this needs additional language about PDPs, at least, but > >>>thought this would be a good start for discussion. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Kind regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Mike Rodenbaugh > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > >

3 2