December 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Travel policy draft and other comments
by Philip Sheppard Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

Alternate motion for today: Proposed Philip Sheppard Seconded Stephane Van Gelder Whereas: Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel. 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient.

2 1

Motion regarding New gTLDs
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

Avri, I just realized that the attached motion regarding the 4-month communication period that I submitted on 21 November has been left off the agenda for our Council meeting tomorrow. Chuck

7 18

Travel policy draft and other comments
by Olga Cavalli Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

Hi, In preparation for our conference call tomorrow, I am enclosing in this email the draft text prepared by the drafting team, which includes the suggestions made by Phillip and acceppted by some of us. There is also a brief summary of Doug Brent´s response in relation with the request of flexibility for fund allocation. There has not been a lot of feedback from constituencies to this text, so am not sure if we are ready yet to draft a motion. Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow. Regards Olga *GNSO PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION OF TRAVEL SUPPORT FUNDS FOR ICANN MEETING* Allocation and Control: The total GNSO Travel support budget (less the amount allotted to the NCAs and GNSO Council chair) should be divided to the extent possible on an equal basis among the GNSO constituencies. The use of travel support funds is for travel to ICANN meetings, including regional, inter-sessional, and face-to-face working group meetings. The use of travel support funds is to be solely determined by each constituency independently as it sees fit to most effectively progress the work of the GNSO. The GNSO Council has no role in deciding how these funds are allocated to individuals. Transparency and Reporting: ICANN staff will publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. *Highligts of the comments sent by Doug Brent:* The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only. Using this approach there will be a number of supported people, not a fund. Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers. If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.

5 9

New Policy Staff
by Denise Michel Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

I am pleased to announce that Margie Milam is joining ICANN's Policy Department as a Senior Policy Counselor. Starting in late January, she will be working on key policy initiatives and helping to support the GNSO community's policy development efforts. Prior to joining ICANN, she served as the Vice President and General Counsel of MarkMonitor Inc., an ICANN accredited registrar providing domain name management and other services to multi-national corporations. A key member of MarkMonitor's executive team, Margie participated in its all of its strategic initiatives, and assisted in the development of its services. Margie spearheaded Markmonitor's policy and regulatory initiatives, including its outreach efforts to educate the business community on Internet developments such as cyber crime, counterfeits, consumer identity theft, and cyber squatting. Previous to her work with MarkMonitor, Margie was a partner in the Los Angeles office of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitman LLP, in the corporate and intellectual property departments, where she represented international clients in the areas of mergers & acquisitions, venture capital financing, strategic alliances, and product distribution. Margie earned her J.D. from the University of Southern California and a B.A. in Business and Economics from the University of California in Los Angeles. Margie resides in Idaho and also will be working out of ICANN's Marina del Rey office. She reports to the VP for Policy, Denise Michel. After 20 January 2009, Margie can be reached at <policy-staff(a)icann.org<Margie.milam(a)icann.org> >. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy policy-staff(a)icann.org <denise.michel(a)icann.org>

1 0

Advisory: Add Grace Period Limits Policy ICANN announces implementation plan for new consensus policy
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 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-17dec08-en.htm Advisory: Add Grace Period Limits Policy ICANN announces implementation plan for new consensus policy 17 December 2008 ICANN is today announcing the implementation plan for the new Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy adopted by the ICANN Board on 26 June 2008. A grace period is a specified number of calendar days following a gTLD registry operation in which the operation may be reversed and a credit may be issued to a Registrar. AGP is typically the five-day period following the initial registration of a domain name. Currently, when a domain name is registered through a registrar, that registrar may delete the domain name at any time during the first five calendar days of the registration (the AGP) and receive a full credit for the registration fee from the registry operator. AGP appears as a contractual term in some, but not all gTLD registry agreements. Posted here is the AGP Limits Policy and the implementation plan. The plan specifies that gTLD Operators (hereinafter referred to as "Operators") must inform each of their accredited Registrars of the new Policy within the next 21 days and subsequently implement the Policy as soon as possible thereafter but no later than 31 March 2009. The new AGP Limits Policy is based on a detailed recommendation made by the GNSO Council to the Board earlier this year and provides that Operators who offer an AGP to their customers will now be prohibited from making refunds to registrars for AGP deletes that exceed the threshold limits set by the Policy. The limits defined by the Policy are (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations (calculated as the total number of net adds of one-year through ten-year registrations as defined in the monthly reporting requirement of Operator Agreements) in that month, or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater, unless an exemption is requested by a Registrar and subsequently granted by an Operator. While Operators will initially have significant flexibility on how to treat such requests, ICANN Staff will monitor the process closely and modifications will be recommended if any additional patterns of abusive behavior are detected. The implementation plan is the result of extensive public deliberations which were part of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on domain tasting, outreach to Operators and ICANN-accredited Registrars, and public comment on a draft implementation plan. The plan includes significant changes to the reporting obligations of Operators. Operators will now be required to submit as part of their monthly reporting requirement information for each Registrar including, but not limited to, the number of exemption requests, number of exemptions granted, numbers of names affected by granted exemption requests and number of AGP deletes if this information is not currently defined in the Operator's monthly reporting requirement. Additionally, the monitoring requirements in the plan require ICANN to publish status reports on the implementation effort which will include a review of all exemption requests and their disposition, names of registrars that have recurring requests for exemptions and the reasons for these exemptions as well as other information defined in the plan. The recent announcement to the ICANN Community on 13 November 2008 reported that AGP deletes decreased by 84% from June to July 2008 as a result of the related AGP budget provision adopted by the Board for fiscal year 2009. The budget provision has the same thresholds as the AGP Limits Policy. The AGP Limits Policy will carry a much higher financial penalty (i.e., the domain name registration fee paid by Registrars to Operators) than the budget provision (i.e., the current registrar-level transaction fee of US$0.20) for excessive AGP deletes. It is expected that following implementation of the Policy, AGP deletes will continue to decline until few or none are subject to excess delete fees. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

Kristina, We tried to capture that in the resolve of the second motion: The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future. I am sure that sooner would be better than later, but no deadline that I am aware of. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Tue, December 16, 2008 2:31 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, It would be helpful if the Registrar Constituency would clarify what "open to continuing the dialogue" does and does not mean. To the extent that there are temporal qualifications, it would be helpful to know those, too. Would you please advise? Thanks. K -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Alternative RAA Motions We are anxious to get these amendments approved and in place as quickly as possible. Registrars are also generally open to further discussions. We should we keep this as simple as possible so I propose the following alternative motions: Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Second motion: Whereas: - The GNSO Council has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be required; - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about future changes to the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 3:46 pm To: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, Staff would like to suggest the following draft language for the two motions being discussed: Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; - It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level vote (>66%) of the GNSO Council. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Second motion: Whereas: - The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be required; - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about future changes to the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council will form a Working Group to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and work with the Registrar Constituency to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future. Thanks, Liz

2 1

Cairo Public Forum Response Published
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 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-15dec08-en.htm Cairo Public Forum Response Published 15 December 2008 A summary and response to questions raised at the public forum in Cairo has been published (see below for links). The response seeks to capture the comments made during the public forum and, where possible, provide answers to questions raised. Input has been split into three areas - comments, questions and suggestions - and split up according to subject. It also comes with the following foreword from Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush. Note from the Chairman: One of the most significant features of ICANN meetings is the Public Forum, where members of the ICANN community are able to present their views on issues of concern to them to the ICANN Board, in public session. The fact that we rotate meetings through each of the geographic sectors of the world enhances the opportunity that people from every region to present their views to the ICANN Board, in the presence of Staff and the whole ICANN community. As a long-time participant from the floor presenting views, in my case from the ccTLD community, I am well aware of the time, effort and expense that goes into the preparation of such statements. As a board member, I have valued hearing those submissions, from individuals, governments and constituencies. I am determined as Chair to continue this tradition, and to maximise the opportunities for information sharing it represents. I have been concerned, however that we have not always captured the inputs from these sessions, so in Cairo I asked Staff to review the comments made in the open microphone sessions of the Public Forum, and to provide responses to comments, and answers to questions that, in the interests of hearing from everyone wishing to speak, were not given on the day. Those comments and answers are given below. I hope members of the community find this a useful process, and one which is worth continuing, after future Public Forums. Thank you to those who contributed in Cairo. Please accept the Staff invitation to continue to contribute through the mechanisms they identify in the paper below. Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman, ICANN 15 December 2008 Related links: The response: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/cairo-public-forum-response.html The full transcript of the public forum: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/cairo-public-forum-transcript.html The response as a PDF file: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/cairo-public-forum-response.pdf [PDF, 233K] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS Counci discussion MP3 recording December 17, 2008--18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of WHOIS Council discussion on Wednesday 17 December at 18:00 UTC http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-whois-20081217.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec Participants present: Avri Doria - GNSO Council chair NCA Chuck Gomes - GNSO Council vice chair -gTLD Registry C Steve Metalitz - IPC Steve DelBianco - CBUC William Drake - NCUC Tim Ruiz - Registrar C ICANN Staff: Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support David Giza - Senior Director, Contractual Compliance Stacy Burnette - Director, Contractual Compliance Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Chair Elections December 2008 - January 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Dear Councillors, A. Nominations for the position of GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2009 until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected closed on Monday, 15 December 2008, at 23:00 UTC. There is one candidate, Avri Doria, who has accepted her nomination by Tim Ruiz, a Registrar constituency representative, http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05840.html seconded by, Stéphane van Gelder a Registrar constituency representative http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05841.html Avri Doria accepted the nomination and provided a candidate statement. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05843.html B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING Unless otherwise decided by the Council, the voting period will be open from Monday, 22 December 2008 at 15:00 UTC to Wednesday, 7 January 2009 at 15:00 UTC. C. VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be by electronic ballot and the candidate receiving the majority of the votes will be elected as the chair. There will be a total of 27 votes cast. The winning candidate must receive at least 14 affirmative votes. D. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. E. VOTING Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot. 1. Ballots will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address. 2. The ballots will come from tally[at]icann.org, so please check your spam filter. 3. Ballots should be filled out and returned to the e-mail address stated in the ballot. They should not be copied to any e-mail list. 4. At the scheduled time, the Secretariat will announce the results of the vote by sending a message to the <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mailing list. This announcement will include: a. The number of votes received by each candidate; b. The names of the GNSO Council members from whom ballots were received; and c. The confidential code number of each ballot and the candidate for whom it was voted. Item 4(c) will allow each GNSO Council member to double-check that his or her ballot was properly understood, but will not allow others to determine how the member voted. 5. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed. F. DISCLOSURE OF THE VOTING The Secretariat will announce the outcome of the voting at the close of the voting period. The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at a scheduled Council meeting in January 2009. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Latest RAA amendments
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

I would like to stress that the Staff has been very dilligent about trying to address every question or issue that had been raised during the comment periods, not just what they or registrars were interested in. In fact, they recently came back to us concerned about some issues that it appeared we had failed to consider in our discussions. We agreed to meet and see if there was anything that could be done at this late stage. The two changes that came out of that were what we felt could be agreed to without up-setting the apple cart (the general consensus of the RrC). Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Latest RAA amendments From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 7:44 am To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Thanks for clarifying Alan. I think it is perfectly reasonable to request feedback in terms of why decisions were made. That continues to be an ongoing concern expressed by many and is an important accountability issue. I really don't have a much of a stake in the RAA issue except that the changes seem to be positive and needed so I think it would be helpful to get them implemented ASAP. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:49 PM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] Latest RAA amendments > > > Chuck and Tim, > > Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I was not trying to > negotiate anything but was asking for a clarification from > staff as to why two changes have been made to the "package", > after Cairo if I understand correctly (there was reference > made at the Thursday meeting about a few more changes that > were going to be made), and long after prior consultations, > but now is too late. > > Alan > > >

1 0