November 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [council] ICANN Regional Meeting in Rome
by Adrian Kinderis Nov. 23, 2008

Nov. 23, 2008

Posting on behalf of Tim Cole. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: Tim Cole [mailto:Tim.Cole@icann.org] Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 12:36 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Regional Meeting in Rome Adrian, I'm afraid there may be some confusion about an annual activity the Registry and Registrar Liaison teams conduct in accordance with ICANN's Operating Plan. Each year we host regional outreach gatherings for ICANN accredited registrars and gTLD registries in the Europe, Asia/Pacific, and North America regions. Our next regional gathering is the Europe Registry/Registrar Regional Gathering scheduled for January in Rome. We recently sent "Save the Date" notices to those eligible to attend, but have not posted anything on the ICANN website itself. These are relatively small information-sharing events intended to educate and inform registrars from the region and their registry partners. They are not intended as an alternative to official ICANN meetings. Nevertheless, many companies send representatives that are not able to travel to ICANN meetings around the world so they can gain a better understanding of ICANN and how it works and to meet some of the people they interact with at ICANN. Earlier this year we held an Asia/Pacific gathering in Seoul and a North America gathering in New Orleans. As the population of registrars expands in other parts of the world, we expect to offer similar events in other regions. I regret any confusion this may have caused and I would gladly answer any questions you may have. Since I do not have posting privileges to the GNSO list, please feel free to share this message. Regards, Tim Cole Chief Registrar Liaison Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:49 PM To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Regional Meeting in Rome I concede defeat. I cannot find anything either. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 4:17 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Regional Meeting in Rome Can anyone point me to any posted information on the upcoming ICANN Regional in Rome? Tim

1 0

RE: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 23, 2008

Nov. 23, 2008

Thanks Stephane accept this as a friendly amendment. Chuck ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 7:26 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period Chuck, As indicated, I would like to propose a friendly amendment (changes shown in red below). Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: samedi 22 novembre 2008 01:15 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period I would like to make the following motion (also attached as a Word file) for consideration at our next Council meeting. Chuck Gomes Whereas: · Implementation Guideline E states, "The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round." (See Final Report, Part A, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4… ) * The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire. * The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'. * Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. * It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages). Resolve: · The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following: o Best efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6. o ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. o The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP). o As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include: § Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) § Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP) § Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.

3 2

ICANN Regional Meeting in Rome
by Tim Ruiz Nov. 23, 2008

Nov. 23, 2008

Can anyone point me to any posted information on the upcoming ICANN Regional in Rome? Tim

2 1

RE: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 22, 2008

Nov. 22, 2008

Stéphane I am not sure that have any control over that, but I would consider it a friendly amendment if you proposed a change in that regard. If you do that, I suggest you request 'best efforts to post the 2nd draft at least two weeks before the Mexico City meeting". Chuck ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period Chuck, If your motion aims to ensure there are no excessive delays due to the 4 months communications period, then it should be more specific about when the second draft of the applicant guidebook is to be published. Otherwise delays in the second draft's publication will still lead to delays in starting the first application round and the aim of your motion will be defeated. As far as I know, staff aims to have the second draft out a couple of weeks before the Mexico meeting. If that's the case, then adding something like: "the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment will be posted for comment at least a week before the first international meeting of 2009" would do the trick. Stéphane Van Gelder From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: samedi 22 novembre 2008 01:15 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Motion re. New gTLD Communications Period I would like to make the following motion (also attached as a Word file) for consideration at our next Council meeting. Chuck Gomes Whereas: · Implementation Guideline E states, "The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round." (See Final Report, Part A, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4… ) * The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire. * The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'. * Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays. * It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages). Resolve: · The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following: o ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. o The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP). o As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include: § Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) § Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP) § Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.

1 0

Candidate sought for GNSO representatives to ICANN Geographic Regions WG.
by Avri Doria Nov. 21, 2008

Nov. 21, 2008

Hi Based on the conversation during today's meeting I have frame the following draft. Please respond as soon as possible so that Glen can send this out befoe the end of the week. I will send out a suggestion on how we do the selection process shortly. a. ---- In response to Board resolutions 2008.11.07.08 and 2008.11.07.09 (attached below) the GNSO Council is soliciting volunteers from the constituencies as well as from the council. The GNSO council is looking for candidates to participate in this WG who are willing and able to represent and advocate for the GNSO position on geographic issues as outlined in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-geographic-regions-26aug08.pdf and are willing to keep the council updated on activities in the WG. As part of the selection process, the GNSO Council is requesting that each candidate for the role post a descriptive paragraph on why they are interested in the role and how their views on the subject compare to those submitted by the council. Nominations, including self-nominations, should be sent, with their descriptive paragraphs to gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org before 28- November-2008. ---- ICANN Board Resolution on Community-Wide Working Group to Review ICANN's Geographic Regions http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07nov08.htm#_Toc87682556 Resolved (2008.11.07.08), the Board authorizes the formation of a community-wide working group to study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, consult with all stakeholders, and submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. The Board requests that all interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees nominate two individuals to serve on the working group, the composition of which the Board would like to approve at the December Board meeting. Resolved (2008.11.07.09), the Board requests the working group, as its first order of business, to draft and seek community input on a proposed charter, and submit the draft document for community review, and Board consideration and approval at the March 2009 Board meeting in Mexico City. In drafting the charter, the working group is directed to focus, but not limit, its work on the criteria for assigning countries, dependencies and recognized geopolitical entities to a Geographic Region, and to take into consideration the relevant ccNSO Board paper, the recent GNSO comments, and other community advice - including the GAC's original advice on the topic in 2000 <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/gac/communique-14jul00.htm >. Further, the Board directs ICANN Staff to support these efforts.

3 6

GNSO Council meeting MP3 recording 20 November 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 21, 2008

Nov. 21, 2008

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 20 November, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20081120.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#nov Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 2

FW: ICANN News Alert -- AGP Deletes Down by 84%
by Mike Rodenbaugh Nov. 20, 2008

Nov. 20, 2008

Below is the 'news alert' from ICANN about the effect of the budget measure designed to mitigate commercial domain tasting, by imposing the .20 ICANN fee on every domain deleted over the threshold of 10% of any registrar's net adds in a month. There has definitely been a positive impact, with AGP deletes down 84% overall. Unfortunately, ICANN does not mention that one registrar - NameKing -- accounted for nearly 40% of the .com AGP deletes in July (956,000, vs. 12,000 adds). Another family of registrars - eNom - accounted for approximately 25% of them (559,000 vs. 203,000 adds). See Verisign registry report here: http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/com-net/verisign-200807.pdf It is particularly glaring that just two registrars accounted for 1.5 million AGP deletes in .com in one month, apparently disregarding the will of the Council and ICANN Board, entirely. Neither ICANN nor Verisign have mentioned why it is taking so long for Verisign to implement the GNSO Council resolution that might mitigate the NameKing and eNom domain tasting business model, as was clearly intended by a supermajority of Council and the ICANN Board. Fwiw, many in the Business Constituency are interested to have some indication of when the resolution will be implemented, and why it has not been implemented to date. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh _____ From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:49 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- AGP Deletes Down by 84% <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13nov08-en.htm _____ AGP Deletes Down by 84% 13 November 2008 In June 2008, the ICANN Board approved the FY09 Budget that contained a provision on AGP deletes. The provision is that domain names deleted during the AGP will be included as transactions if they exceed the maximum of (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month, or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. Therefore the per-transaction fee, currently US$0.20, will be assessed on all AGP deletes that exceed the defined threshold. This provision was adopted as a short-term solution to address excessive AGP delete activity until the consensus policy on domain tasting, now referred to as the AGP Limits Policy, is implemented. The Policy and draft implementation plan were posted for public comment on 20 October 2008 (see, http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20oct08-en.htm) and are expected to be announced for implementation in early December. Following implementation of the Board approved budget provision that affects the "domain tasting fee," names added and subsequently deleted during the five-day AGP declined from approximately 17.6M in June 2008 to 2.8M in July 2008. Of the 2.8M AGP deletes in July, approximately 2.6M were subject to the registrar-level transaction fee defined by the provision. Therefore, it is expected that the quantity of AGP deletes will continue to decline until few or none are subject to the transaction fee. ICANN will continue to provide updates to the community on AGP delete activity following the three-month confidentiality period for gTLD monthly reports. These reports may be viewed at http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/. _____ Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine <http://www.icann.org/magazine/> This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann(a)rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing Software <http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p ng> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&m=19 3464&c=165637> Manage your subscription <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=193464&act=PWHD&r=11033829&c= 165637>

4 8

Issues Report re Abuse Policies -- request for clarification from Council
by Mike Rodenbaugh Nov. 20, 2008

Nov. 20, 2008

Hi, I refer to Sec. 7.1 of the Report, which ends with these sentences: The use of domain names may be taken into account when establishing or changing registration policies. Thus, potential changes to existing contractual provisions related to abuse in the registration of names would be within scope of GNSO policy making. Consideration of new policies related to the use of a domain name unrelated to its registration would not be within scope. Could ICANN Counsel please clarify this language? Specifically, what could be "use of a domain name unrelated to its registration"? If this means "any use of a domain name after it is registered", then how is that opinion consistent with prior enactment of the UDRP, and Counsel's opinion in the Issues Report re Fast Flux Hosting (Mar. 31, 2008, p. 14): General Counsel's opinion is that some aspects relating to the subject of fast flux hosting are within scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. As fast flux hosting activities concern gTLDs, the issue is within the scope of the GNSO to address. This clarification and/or further analysis might be very helpful for the Council in considering the latest Issues Report in the coming weeks, before our next meeting. Thanks, Mike R.

4 8

GNSO Council agenda 20 November 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 20, 2008

Nov. 20, 2008

Dear All, Please see the updated GNSO Council agenda on the Wiki page: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_20_nov_2008 Please note that the presentation of the GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/registration-abuse-policies-issues-rep… on page http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/ Agenda 20 Nov 2008 Roll Call (5) Updated SOI (5) Agenda Review (5) set restructuring plan as separate item and not status update Approve Minutes 25 September 2008, 16 October 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05591.html 16 October 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct08.shtml WHOIS Studies (10) Clarification of next steps constituency priority and viewpoints - written feedback we discuss a special meeting, if so when? motions? Registration Abuse Policies (20) Presentation of issues report http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/registration-abuse-policies-issues-rep… http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registra… Discussion Next Steps Comments on IDNccTLD Fast track (20) Draft Implementation Plan http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan… discussion of next steps - GNSO council repsonse? repeat of outstanding issues: fees, timing, agreements/contracts. drafting team other issues Note: Comment Period ends 8 Dec 2008 Issues on new gTLD Implementation - discussion of next steps on possible actions (15) continued review - 26 Nov, posting of council level comments? possible modification of 4 month posting of final RFP requirement? Note: Comment Period ends 8 Dec 2008 - Question regarding comment period for translated materials GNSO Restructuring Implementation Plan (10) GNSO Council Restructuring Implementation Plan Strawman http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05713.html Decision steps and finalization Note: due before the 11 December Board meeting. Community-Wide Working Group to Review ICANN's Geographic Regions Need to pick 2 Reps Interested candidates: Eric Brunner-Williams Status Updates (20) Board Update Policy Items RAA - board asked for guidance from council Domain Tasting end 20 Nov Working Groups Fast Flux IRTP Part A PDP Drafting Teams Travel Policy Open Discussion Comment GNSO "Improvements" PPSC Update OSC Update AOB Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ALAC Request for Issues Report on Post-expiration Domain Recovery
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 20, 2008

Nov. 20, 2008

On behalf of the ALAC, I am formally submitting the attached Request for an Issues Report on Post-expiration Domain Recovery. Alan Greenberg

1 0