October 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
by Avri Doria Oct. 10, 2008

Oct. 10, 2008

Hi, My issue, one in which I was in a minority in the planning team, concerns the membership of the GNSO Operations Steering Committee (OSC) (page 12) . It has been my belief that a representative of any constituency-in- formation should be included in the OSC as an participating observer. I define constituency-in-formation as one that has reached some status as defined in the new constituency process where they are formal candidates for acceptance. I believe that once a serious group of organizers have declared themselves publicly and have fulfilled what ever requirements for candidacy are set, they will have incurred some degree of expectation concerning the way constituency and stakeholder operations are organized and will have prepared themselves for membership according to those expectations. If the operational structure is going to change while they are in the application process, perhaps even change in a way that is detrimental toward their membership possibilities, they should have a voice in those deliberations. This can best be achieved by allowing them to participate in the steering Committee meetings as observers. I propose the following amendment to the plan: In the section "Other Participants in the OSC" on page 12, add: o 1 representative from any constituencies-in-formation formally involved in the process of applying for inclusion in one of the GNSO Stakeholder groups. The definition of the new constituency process should include the requirements that need to be met to achieve this status. While a version of this was in the penultimate version of the draft, it was removed during the final discussion on the plan at a meeting I could not attend. As the Planning team in effect rejected this language, I do not believe it can accepted as a friendly amendment. I will therefore make it as a motion for amendment to the plan. If it is seconded, we will need to vote on the amendment before voting on the accepting the plan itself. thanks a.

5 11

Bengali and Khmer Added to IDN Testing Process
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 10, 2008

Oct. 10, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09oct08-en.htm Bengali and Khmer Added to IDN Testing Process Internationalized Domain Name wikis now cover 17 languages 9 October 2008 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers efforts to bring the languages of the world online have expanded with the addition of two new languages — Bengali and Khmer — to the global testing process. "Each time we add a new language to the wiki, we open up the chance for more characters to be tested, and for more people to be involved and offer us input and ideas," said Tina Dam, Director of ICANN's Internationalized Domain Name Program "Since we launched the wiki with 11 languages in October 2007, we have added six new languages. We will continue to add languages whenever language communities come forward that can support a wiki." The new Bengali and Khmer wiki pages are available off the main IDN wiki page, idn.icann.org, and through the following links: Bengali bn.idn.icann.org বাংলা .idn.icann.org xn--54b7fta0cc.idn.icann.org Khmer : http://km.idn.icann.org ភាសាខ្មែរ.idn.icann.org http://xn--j2e7beiw1lb2hqg.idn.icann.org Because the addresses and some content display in fonts that many Internet users may not have loaded on their computers, ICANN has added a font page to the IDN wiki. It allows users to see if the fonts are loaded — and if they aren't to download them. The font page is at: http://idn.icann.org/Fonts. ICANN is working with the larger Internet community to bring IDNs online at the top level. This means that instead of the current Roman characters available for domain names, close to 100,000 characters from the languages of the world would be available. "Our goal is for IDNs to be available when the application period for new top level domains are launched in the second quarter of 2009," Dam added. "IDNs will help people have their name in their language, and these wiki pages are an important step in testing how IDNs work." Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposal To Sign the Root Zone Made Public
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 10, 2008

Oct. 10, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Proposal To Sign the Root Zone Made Public http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09oct08-en.htm 9 October 2008 A proposal [PDF, 276K] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/dnssec-proposal-09oct08-en.pdf to sign the root zone file with Domain Name System Security Extensions, or DNSSEC, technology was released by ICANN today. DNSSEC provides a way for software to validate that Domain Name System (DNS) data have not been modified during Internet transit. This is done by incorporating public-private signature key pairs into the DNS hierarchy to form a chain of trust originating at the root zone. Importantly, DNSSEC is not a form of encryption. It is backward compatible with existing DNS, leaving records as they are - unencrypted. DNSSEC ensures record integrity through the use of digital signatures that attest to their authenticity. This proposal has been written by ICANN staff, as authorized by ICANN's Board, with the goal to proceed with appropriate speed and deploy DNSSEC at the root level as a step towards improving the overall security of the DNS. "The proposal has already been reviewed by a group of global DNSSEC experts. The feedback ICANN received from this group indicates that the proposal is technically sound, and appropriate" ICANN's President and CEO Paul Twomey said. At the core of DNSSEC is the concept of a 'chain of trust'. ICANN's proposal builds on that notion and, based on security advice, recommends that the entity responsible for making changes, additions and deletions to the root zone file and confirming those changes are valid (ICANN presently performs this function - called the IANA function - under contract from the United States Department of Commerce), should generate and digitally sign the resulting root zone file update. This signed file should then be passed to another organization (presently VeriSign Corporation) for distribution. In other words, the organization responsible for the initial basis of trust - validating root zone changes with top level domain operators - should also authenticate the validity of the final product before it is distributed. The release occurs as the United States Department of Commerce also announced a Notice of Inquiry on the concept of signing the Root Zone. Details can be found here: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-23974.pdf [PDF, 72K]. "ICANN has more than a year of experience in producing a signed root zone that has already been widely tested by DNS software vendors and the interested DNSSEC community. ICANN also has "built-in" the participation of a group of world-class DNS experts" Dr Twomey said. "This is a moment of challenge and opportunity in addressing the overall stability and security of the DNS system - the mission around which ICANN was formed" he added. A set of questions and answers http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/dnssec-qaa-09oct08-en.htm on what DNSSEC is and why it is important is also published to assist with the reading of the proposal. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

16 October meeting
by Avri Doria Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

hi, In addition to the draft agenda to be found in: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_16_oct_2008 note: While Glen still does the formal publication of the draft agenda, as the agenda is discussed on this list, any changes will be reflected in the Wiki version of the agenda and will be pointed out at the start of the meeting. One change has been made to the 'traditional' order of the agenda. For any item for which there is a motion on the table at the time the agenda is created, that item will be front loaded into the agenda. Items for discussion etc will still be scheduled for after the status reports. This change is made in response to a suggestion made during the last meeting. A set of motions for this meeting can be found at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_october_motions Currently there are two on the table: 1. Geographic Regions Motion (carried forward from 25 September) which still needs a mover and a seconder 2. Motion on ccNSO Liaison which I am making and which still needs to be seconded. Thanks a.

3 7

RE: [council] 16 October meeting
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

I second the geo motion. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] 16 October meeting > From: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar> > Date: Thu, October 09, 2008 11:09 am > To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> > Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi, > I want to move the Geographic Regions > Motion. > Regards > Olga > 2008/10/9 Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > hi, > In addition to the draft agenda to be > found in: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/ind > ex.cgi?agenda_16_oct_2008 > note: While Glen still does the > formal publication of the draft > agenda, as the agenda is discussed on > this list, any changes will be > reflected in the Wiki version of the > agenda and will be pointed out at the > start of the meeting. One change has > been made to the 'traditional' order > of the agenda. For any item for > which there is a motion on the table > at the time the agenda is created, > that item will be front loaded into > the agenda. Items for discussion etc > will still be scheduled for after > the status reports. This change is > made in response to a suggestion made > during the last meeting. > A set of motions for this meeting can > be found at: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/ind > ex.cgi?16_october_motions > Currently there are two on the table: > 1. Geographic Regions Motion > (carried forward from 25 September) > which still needs a mover and a > seconder > 2. Motion on ccNSO Liaison which I > am making and which still needs to be > seconded. > Thanks > a.

1 0

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 16 October 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 16 October 2008 This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time12:00 UTC - see below for local times (05:00 Los Angeles, 08:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 23:00 Melbourne) (PLEASE NOTE MELBOURNE: DST started on Sunday 5 October 2008, 02 h 00 local standard time) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins. Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members. Item 0: Roll call of Council members Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Review/amend agenda Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes: (Items 0-3 10 mins ) 4 September 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05515.html 25 September 2008 Item 4: Discussion on GNSO Response concerning Geo Regions (10 mins) ICANN Geographic Regions http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-geographic-regions-26aug08.pdf (Motion ?) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_october_motions -- Constituency feedback -- Next Steps Item 5: Discussion on ccNSO liaison (10 min) (motion) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_october_motions * Discussion of selection criteria and process Item 6: Status Update (30 mins) 6.1 ICANN Board (except GNS0 improvements/restructuring) Resolutions of Special Board Meeting http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm 6.2 Fast Flux PDP WG 6.3 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A PDP 6.4 New GTLDs 6.5 Fast Track 6.6 Add Grace Period (AGP) 6.7 Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) 6.8 Cairo Travel funding 6.9 Front Running update (confidential) Item 7: GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan (20) Update on Board decisions regarding restructuring http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-24sept08… (Motion ?) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_october_motions Next steps representatives for steering committees Item 8 Whois Hypotheses Study Group (15 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c… (Motion) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_october_motions -- Constituency feedback -- Next Steps Item 9: Planning for Cairo (15 mins) Rough agendas Do we take votes at the open meeting? Item 10: Any Other Business (5 mins) (05:00 Los Angeles, 08:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 23:00 Melbourne) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 12:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 05:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4+1DST 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 13:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Oslo, Norway (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+1DST 18:00 Phnom Penh, Cambodia UTC+7+0DST 19:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2008, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Resolutions from the Board meeting held on 1 Oct 2008
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

See below from: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm Note there was a lot of discussion on the GNSO restructure and a fairly detailed resolution follows It mostly endorses the recommendations of the working group. Note also that the Board is seeking further input on the process for selecting Board seats: Ie: "The Board and General Counsel have outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board seat elections and directs Staff to share these with the community and seek additional input. " Regards, Bruce This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 1 October 2008. This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but a preliminary attempt to capture the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Board's Minutes. Minutes of 28 August 2008 It is, Resolved (2008-10-01-01) that the Minutes of the Special Board Meeting of 28 August 2008 are hereby approved. Director's Code of Conduct ========================== Whereas the members of ICANN's Board of Directors are committed to maintaining a high standard of ethical conduct; Whereas the Board Governance Committee developed a Board of Directors' Code of Conduct ("DCC") to provide the Board with guiding principles for conducting themselves in an ethical manner; Whereas the DCC was posted for public comment from 15 July 2008 through 29 August 2008; Whereas ICANN has received public comments from the Community (i.e. ICANN's Business Constituency, the International Trademark Association, and the Coalition for Online Accountability) and the Board Governance Committee has found merit in comments submitted; It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.02), the Board of Directors adopts the ICANN Director's Code of Conduct ("DCC"), and refers the DCC to the Board's Conflicts of Interest ("COI") Committee for implementation. Also, it is, Resolved (2008.10.01.03), the Board of Directors asks the COI Committee, as part of its implementation of the DCC, to review and consider public comments in extending the DCC's reach and in reviewing possible changes to the COI Policy. De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure ============================================= Whereas, Staff has implemented a Registrar Data Escrow program to protect registrants through the escrowing of certain registration data for use upon de-accreditation of an ICANN-accredited registrar; Whereas, Staff has developed a set of processes entitled the De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure in consultation with the ICANN community to facilitate timely transition of gTLD registrations upon de-accreditation of a registrar to another accredited registrar; Whereas, the De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure has been posted by ICANN for public comment and utilized by Staff on an interim basis; Whereas, the Board requested that the purpose of the procedure reflect the goal of enhancing the protection to the registrants and that any benefits from an auction would generally go to pay outstanding ICANN fees, with the remainder left for the de-accredited registrar where appropriate; It is hereby resolved (2008.10.01.04) that the Board adopts the De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure and further directs Staff to periodically re-evaluate its effectiveness as the registrar marketplace evolves and make modifications to the procedure as appropriate. Financial Approval of Contractor Agreement for Multiple Language Algorithms relating to New gTLD Program Implementation ======================================================================== ========== Whereas staff recommended the purchase of algorithm services as required as part of the FY09 Operating Plan and Budget; Whereas staff researched and investigated multiple options for algorithm service providers, performed due diligence, and identified SWORD as the preferred provider; Resolved (2008.10.01.05), the Board authorizes the CEO, COO and/or General Counsel to enter into an agreement for algorithm-related services with SWORD for up to US$700,000. GNSO Council Restructuring ========================== Whereas, during its 28 August 2008 meeting the Board made several important decisions regarding the new GNSO Council's structure, composition, and implementation timing. These decisions included the formation of four new Stakeholder Groups that comprise a new bicameral (two-house) voting structure that was recommended by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring - the WG-GCR. Whereas, during its 30 September meeting the Board concluded consideration of the WG-GCR Report including its recommendations on Nominating Committee Appointees, election of Council leadership, election of Board seats #13 and #14, voting thresholds for various Council decisions, the role of individual Internet users and their representation within the GNSO, as well as the timing for the implementation of these elements and other key implementation issues. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Membership and Leadership Selection:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.06), as recommended by the WG-GCR, the Board authorizes a third Council-level non-voting Nominating Committee Appointee to serve on the Council whose presence could preserve an independent aspect on the Council and could provide useful management support as the Council moves toward a working group management function. It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.07), the Board authorizes the GNSO Council to elect a Chair consistent with the recommendation of the WG-GCR - that the GNSO Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting its own Vice Chair. The Board directs the Council to develop a process for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair election of the newly structured Council. It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.08), the Board and General Counsel have outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board seat elections and directs Staff to share these with the community and seek additional input. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Operational/Voting Considerations:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.09), the Board adopts all voting thresholds proposed in the WG-GCR Report. The Board requests that the GNSO develop any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as part of its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be submitted to the Board for approval. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Stakeholder and Constituency Organizational Concerns:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10), the Board acknowledges Staff's development of the "Notice of Intent" documentation for potential new constituencies and directs Staff to develop a formal petition and charter template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing constituencies. It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.11), the Board reinforces its support for the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups, and requests that all constituency members and other relevant parties comply with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board in establishing the newly formed structures, including: - The need to better represent the wide variety of groups and individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that can change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders. - The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable. It is, further Resolved (2008.10.01.12), that the Board further directs Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of those structures. It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.13), the Board directs that plans for each of the four new Stakeholder Groups, that are consistent with the above principles, be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting. The plans must be reviewed and approved by the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be deficient or delayed. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (The Role of Individual Internet Users in the GNSO:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.14), The Board requests additional community dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of individual Internet users, including individual commercial and non-commercial Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the ALAC and At-Large community, and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly helpful and should address the inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures, and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Implementation Timing:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be as follows: Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. IT Equipment Purchase Financial Approval ======================================== Whereas the Board finance committee and staff recommend that the purchase of IT equipment is required as part of the FY09 Operating Plan and Budget, It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.16), that the Board approves the purchase and authorization for payment by the CFO of up to US$800,000 of IT equipment to a single specified vendor, as set out within documentation to the Board relating to such purchases. Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Review - Terms of Reference, Request for Proposals, and Working Group Charter Whereas the ICANN community has embarked on a series of reviews in accordance with its Bylaws and as part of its commitment to continuous improvement; Whereas the Board Governance Committee has formed the SSAC Review Working Group to oversee the review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee; Whereas the Working Group has developed a Charter for its work; Whereas a Terms of Reference for the review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has been developed in consultation with the community; Whereas a Request for Proposal was developed by the SSAC Review Working Group in consultation with the SSAC to seek an independent reviewer to conduct a review based on this Terms of Reference; Whereas the SSAC Review Working Group has discussed these documents with the Board Governance Committee; Whereas the Board Governance Committee recommends that the Board approve these documents; It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.17), that the Board approves the Charter for the SSAC Review Working Group and the Terms of Reference and Request for Proposal for the SSAC Review. Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for ICANN's Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Review Independent Review Contractor ======================================================================== ============ Whereas the ICANN community has embarked on a series of reviews as part of its commitment to continuous improvement; Whereas a Terms of Reference for the review of the Root Server System Advisory Committee has been developed in consultation with the community; Whereas a Request for Proposal was posted in July seeking an independent reviewer to conduct a review based on this Terms of Reference; Whereas the RSSAC review WG appointed by the Board has reviewed all the applications received to this RFP; Whereas the RSSAC Review WG has discussed its rationale and conclusions with the Board Governance Committee and the Board Governance Committee has recommended that the Board approve the appointment of Westlake Consulting; It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.18), that the Board approve the appointment of Westlake Consulting as the independent reviewer for the RSSAC Review. Single-Character Name Requests from DotCoop and dotMobi ======================================================== It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.18), the Board defers action on these proposals pending a more thorough review of the communications and results of the bottom-up process and efforts of the working group on allocation of Single-Character, Second Level-Domains (SC-SLDs) relating to the gTLD registries. Travel Expense Authorization for Board Members Appointed to the President's Strategy Committee ======================================================================== ============= Whereas the following Board members are also members of the President's Strategy Committee; Peter Dengate Thrush, Raimundo Beca, Jean-Jacques Subrenat; Whereas travel authorization is required to support these members' participation in planned outreach activities during the consultation process on Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN, including to specified meetings in Montevideo (Raimundo Beca), Washington D.C. (Peter Dengate Thrush, Raimundo Beca, Jean-Jacques Subrenat), Brussels (Jean-Jacques Subrenat), expected forthcoming in Middle East region (two Board/PSC members TBA, post-Cairo meeting) and Addis Ababa (Afrinic meeting, Raimundo Beca); Whereas explicit authorization is required to approve travel support for these global outreach activities by Board members; It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.19), that the Board authorizes travel support for Board Members who are also members of the President's Strategy Committee to attend meetings and consultations during the FY08-09 'Improving Institutional Confidence' outreach process.

2 1

RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP
by Olof Nordling Oct. 8, 2008

Oct. 8, 2008

Tim and Mike, Thanks for chiming in on this! Probably important that we don't add to any confusion when trying to clarify the provisions.Views from others? Best regards Olof ________________________________________ From: owner-gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org [owner-gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Collins [michael(a)InternetCommerce.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 9:47 PM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP I concur and suggest that we delete "or transfer to the Registrar of Record". Thank you Tim. Best regards, Michael Collins Executive Director Internet Commerce Association +1. 202 657 4570 +1. 407 242 9009 mobile -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:05 PM To: gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP If I recall correctly, we adopted the exact wording suggested by the previous WG. See Annex 2 of their final report at: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf I believe the drafting team understood that the phrase "or transfer to the Registrar of Record" was included to clarify that it only applied if a name was transferred from one registrar to a different registrar (the latter becoming the Registrar of Record), not to endorse what Danny is concerned about. I would not object to removing the phrase if it is confusing. So the last sentence would simply read: “Transferred” shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.” Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, October 07, 2008 5:40 am To: "gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear drafting group members and Councilors, Please see the summary of public comments below – the single comment on-topic was posted by Danny Younger and is included in full in the summary. As the GNSO handling of this PDP has concluded and the outcome is now due for the ICANN Board, I would appreciate comments to the statements made by Danny Younger, in order to fully inform the Board’s handling of the PDP outcome. Very best regards Olof Nordling ------------------------------------------------------------ Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP The comment period ran from 15 September 2008 to 6 October 2008. Two comments were received of which one off-topic (from Shantanu Panigrahi) expressing concerns over a particular transfer case and one comment (from Danny Younger) objecting to a part of the definition in the proposed new text for Denial Reason #9. The proposed text for Denial Reason #9 is as follows: “A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). “Transferred” shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.” Danny Younger states the following: “With regard to Denial Reason #9, I take issue with the clause "or transfer to the Registrar of Record" included therein. In the first instance, this clause is out of scope as the clarifications requested were only to pertain to inter-registrar transfers. In the second place, the clause serves to validate the unacceptable practice known as the Registrar Direct Transfer, i.e. "Should you choose not to renew your domain name during any applicable grace period, you agree that we may, in our sole discretion, renew and transfer the domain name to a third party on your behalf (such a transaction is hereinafter referred to as a "Direct Transfer")." Third, the clause is anticompetitive. With this language, the following scenario would unfold: 1. a registrant doesn't renew his domain name and the domain is transfered to the registrar of record 2. The registrar auctions the domain to a third party 3. The third-party is prevented from readily transferring the registration to another registrar because of the 60-day lock. This practice serves to keep most Direct Transfers at the incumbent registrar (as such impeding free competition for domain name registration services).”

1 0

RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 8, 2008

Oct. 8, 2008

If I recall correctly, we adopted the exact wording suggested by the previous WG. See Annex 2 of their final report at: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf I believe the drafting team understood that the phrase "or transfer to the Registrar of Record" was included to clarify that it only applied if a name was transferred from one registrar to a different registrar (the latter becoming the Registrar of Record), not to endorse what Danny is concerned about. I would not object to removing the phrase if it is confusing. So the last sentence would simply read: “Transferred” shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.” Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, October 07, 2008 5:40 am To: "gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear drafting group members and Councilors, Please see the summary of public comments below – the single comment on-topic was posted by Danny Younger and is included in full in the summary. As the GNSO handling of this PDP has concluded and the outcome is now due for the ICANN Board, I would appreciate comments to the statements made by Danny Younger, in order to fully inform the Board’s handling of the PDP outcome. Very best regards Olof Nordling ------------------------------------------------------------ Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP The comment period ran from 15 September 2008 to 6 October 2008. Two comments were received of which one off-topic (from Shantanu Panigrahi) expressing concerns over a particular transfer case and one comment (from Danny Younger) objecting to a part of the definition in the proposed new text for Denial Reason #9. The proposed text for Denial Reason #9 is as follows: “A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). “Transferred” shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.” Danny Younger states the following: “With regard to Denial Reason #9, I take issue with the clause "or transfer to the Registrar of Record" included therein. In the first instance, this clause is out of scope as the clarifications requested were only to pertain to inter-registrar transfers. In the second place, the clause serves to validate the unacceptable practice known as the Registrar Direct Transfer, i.e. "Should you choose not to renew your domain name during any applicable grace period, you agree that we may, in our sole discretion, renew and transfer the domain name to a third party on your behalf (such a transaction is hereinafter referred to as a "Direct Transfer")." Third, the clause is anticompetitive. With this language, the following scenario would unfold: 1. a registrant doesn't renew his domain name and the domain is transfered to the registrar of record 2. The registrar auctions the domain to a third party 3. The third-party is prevented from readily transferring the registration to another registrar because of the 60-day lock. This practice serves to keep most Direct Transfers at the incumbent registrar (as such impeding free competition for domain name registration services).”

1 0

Draft GNSO Council minutes of 4 September 2008.
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 8, 2008

Oct. 8, 2008

Dear All, Attached please find the draft GNSO Council minutes of 4 September 2008. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you. kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0