December 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] 20 Nov Council call - staff response to Afilias RSEP question
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

I'm a little dense at times, but it seems to me this is really not an answer unless the implication is that since Staff determined no change to the RRA was necessary (and hence no change to the Registry Agreement), use of the RSEP was not necessary. Is that the case? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] 20 Nov Council call - staff response to Afilias RSEP question From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, December 09, 2008 12:47 pm To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Kristina and all, At the last GNSO Council meeting, during the discussion on the issues report on registration abuse provisions, Kristina Rosette asked whether Afilias was required to use the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) to implement their anti-abuse policy or whether Afilias could have implemented it unilaterally. Following is staff’s response to that question: Afilias contacted ICANN about their proposed anti-abuse policy and following a review of the RSEP and their Registry Agreement, ICANN staff determined that the proposed anti-abuse policy did not require a modification to the Registry-Registrar Agreement (RRA) which is part of the Registry Agreement. It should be noted, however, that the RSEP is required for all registry services as defined in the Registry Agreement. It is also worth noting that Afilias implemented their Abusive Use Policy pursuant to section 3.5.2 of their Registry-Registrar Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/info/appendix-08-08dec06.htm>, which allows Afilias to require registrars to comply with: "operational standards, policies, procedures, and practices for the Registry TLD established from time to time by Afilias in a non-arbitrary manner and applicable to all registrars, including affiliates of Afilias, and consistent with ICANN's standards, policies, procedures, and practices and Afilias’ Registry Agreement with ICANN." Please let us know if you have further questions. Thanks, Liz

2 1

Latest RAA amendments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

I have received a question from an ALAC member, and the answer might go a long way to understanding the current RAA situation. The current version of the RAA amendment package includes two new changes, one of which provides contact information for registrars, the wording of which is widely felt to be inadequate since it could be a mail drop (or equivalent) and not the actual place of business. The question is, if these last two changes have just been made, what is the inhibitor stopping additional changes to be made? The specific one in question here would: "Registrars on their company Web sites must disclose the physical address of their business, including their headquarters office, and a reliable means to reach them by telephone and e-mail. Post office boxes and e-mail addresses are not sufficient." Alan >Alan, > >It seems amendments are still being made. Could you ask staff and >GNSO if they will accept the Consumer Reports standard Beau's proposing: > >>1. Identity: >>Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location where they >>are produced, including an address, a telephone number or e-mail address. >>Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, >>naming their parent company. >>Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission. > >Adam > > > > > >>As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam >>businesses, going the extra mile for physical location where the >>site is produced is necessary. >>________________________________________ >>From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny >>Younger [dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com] >>Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM >>To: At-Large Worldwide >>Cc: NA Discuss >>Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment >> >>ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get >>the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The >>latest amendment added to the package is this: >> >>3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact >>details including valid email and mailing address. >> >>Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to >>identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have >>its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a >>Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at >>a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and >>mailing address). >> >>Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" >>addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as >>primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive >>behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address >>the concerned raised by users on this topic. >> >>Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will >>only give lip service to user concerns. >> >> >> >> >>------ >>NA-Discuss mailing list >>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> >>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>------ >> >>*** >>Scanned >> >>** >>This e-mail message is intended only for the designated >>recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail >>and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If >>you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, >>copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any >>purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have >>received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender >>by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any >>attachments from your computer system. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>At-Large mailing list >>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 3

RE: [council] Latest RAA amendments
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Alan, I think before there are any further discussions, we need to make a decision about what has been proposed now. There has to be an endpoint at which we make a decision on these amendments one way or another. My personal response to the issue raised below would be that the suggested change is a very North American centric view of the world. And I can tell you that it has been discussed at length multiple times. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Latest RAA amendments From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, December 16, 2008 10:52 am To: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, Tim Cole <Tim.Cole(a)icann.org>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I have received a question from an ALAC member, and the answer might go a long way to understanding the current RAA situation. The current version of the RAA amendment package includes two new changes, one of which provides contact information for registrars, the wording of which is widely felt to be inadequate since it could be a mail drop (or equivalent) and not the actual place of business. The question is, if these last two changes have just been made, what is the inhibitor stopping additional changes to be made? The specific one in question here would: "Registrars on their company Web sites must disclose the physical address of their business, including their headquarters office, and a reliable means to reach them by telephone and e-mail. Post office boxes and e-mail addresses are not sufficient." Alan >Alan, > >It seems amendments are still being made. Could you ask staff and >GNSO if they will accept the Consumer Reports standard Beau's proposing: > >>1. Identity: >>Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location where they >>are produced, including an address, a telephone number or e-mail address. >>Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, >>naming their parent company. >>Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission. > >Adam > > > > > >>As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam >>businesses, going the extra mile for physical location where the >>site is produced is necessary. >>________________________________________ >>From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny >>Younger [dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com] >>Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM >>To: At-Large Worldwide >>Cc: NA Discuss >>Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment >> >>ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get >>the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The >>latest amendment added to the package is this: >> >>3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact >>details including valid email and mailing address. >> >>Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to >>identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have >>its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a >>Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at >>a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and >>mailing address). >> >>Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" >>addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as >>primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive >>behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address >>the concerned raised by users on this topic. >> >>Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will >>only give lip service to user concerns. >> >> >> >> >>------ >>NA-Discuss mailing list >>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> >>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>------ >> >>*** >>Scanned >> >>** >>This e-mail message is intended only for the designated >>recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail >>and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If >>you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, >>copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any >>purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have >>received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender >>by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any >>attachments from your computer system. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>At-Large mailing list >>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Second Consultation on Registry/Registrar Report this Friday
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 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-2-15dec08-en.htm Second Consultation on Registry/Registrar Report this Friday 15 December 2008 Responding to community requests for additional dialogue about the requirements for the separation of gTLD registries and registrars, ICANN posted a 9 December announcement about two open consultations on the CRA International report titled, "Revisiting Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars" [PDF, 493K]. The first consultation occurred in Washington, DC on 11 December 2008, and the MP3 recording of that can be found here. The second consultation is scheduled for Friday, 19 December in Marina del Rey, CA from 10am-noon (PST) / 18:00-20:00 (UTC). The consultation will be hosted near ICANN's office and remote participation will again be available. If you plan to attend in person or call in for this meeting, please RSVP to crai-report-consultation(a)icann.org by 18 December and the hotel address and dial-in information will be emailed to you. This session also will be recorded and an MP3 recording will be publicly posted. In addition, a summary of the comments and proposed models for registry agreement terms that describe registry-registrar separation requirements will be published. While the short notice period has made it difficult for some to participate, remote participation facilities have been made available and support received for the Washington, DC and Marina del Rey, CA meetings has been excellent. To ensure broad opportunity for comment, there will be additional consultations that will be arranged by ICANN staff. Comments on the CRAI report are welcome via email to crai-report(a)icann.org. Because the comment period on this document is scheduled to conclude today and it is anticipated that the session on Friday will result in additional comment, the comment period will be extended until 0:00 UTC, 23 December 2008. Comments are reported at http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Revisions in Proposed Changes to Registrar Accreditation Agreement
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 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-16dec08-en.htm Revisions in Proposed Changes to Registrar Accreditation Agreement 16 December 2008 ICANN today posted a revised set of proposed amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. The amendments are intended to provide additional protections for registrants and improved enforcement tools. These most recent changes include two additional amendments and are a result of public comments received and subsequent community dialogue. In accordance with RAA defined process for amending the agreement, ICANN has provided a written report describing the broad-based process undertaken to arrive at this set of amendments. This report is designed to inform the GNSO and community discussion of the amendments. There will be another public comment period before the ICANN Board would consider this set of proposed contract changes. The two new proposed amendments are intended to enhance public availability of Whois data and registrar contact information: Licensee Contact Information Disclosure - Requires a Registered Name Holder that licenses use of a domain name to disclose the contact information provided by the licensee under certain circumstances. (Presently, only the identity of the licensee need be disclosed.) Registrar Contact Information - Requires registrars to provide their accurate contact details on their websites including valid email and mailing addresses. An updated redline of the current RAA showing all of the proposed changes is posted at: Updated Redline 2001 RAA [PDF, 116K] An updated comparison chart showing both Current RAA Language and Proposed Language is posted at: Updated RAA Provisions Comparison [PDF, 40K] The GNSO is planning to discuss and provide advice regarding the proposed set of changes to the ICANN Board of Directors as requested by the Board in a resolution. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Revised GNSO Council Agenda 18 December & dial-in information
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Dear Council Members, Please find the revised GNSO Council Agenda in plain text below (more links have been added and the Council minutes of 20 November are not ready for approval). http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-18dec08.shtml Please look at the end of this email for the dial-in information, which can also be found on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?call_in_numbers The agenda is also posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec and on the Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_18_dec_2008 Proposed Motions can be viewed at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions Please note that for several of the motions absentee voting will be provided. http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X Section 8 c Please let me know if you will not be able to attend the teleconference. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 18 December 2008 This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time19:00 UTC - see below for local times (11:00 Los Angeles, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 London, 20:00 Brussels, 06:00 Melbourne next day) 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: Confirm election results for 2 GNSO representatives to the Community-Wide WG on Geographical Regions (5mins) Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil elected http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05808.html Item 4: RAA (10 mins) Updated redline copy http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa/redline-2001-raa-25nov08.pdf Updated RAA provisions comparison http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa/raa-provisions-comparison-16dec08.pdf Current list of proposed RAA amendments - 16 December 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p… See proposed motions: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18%20Dec%202008%20Motions Item 5: Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (20 mins) GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf - Overview - Presentation by Staff http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/post-expiration-domain-name-recovery-i… Discussion and decision on next steps: Motion to consider PDP at next meeting. Item 6: GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies1 (20 mins) Issues Report on Registration Abuse http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registra… - Decision on whether to create a Drafting Team for a WG charter - Decision on whether to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) - Contingent motions https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18%20Dec%202008%20Motions Item 7: Nominating Committee (10 mins) Discussion with Tricia Drakes Nominating Committee Chair Item 8: Domain Tasting comment review (10 mins) Summary and analysis of public comments for: AGP Limits Policy Draft Implementation Plan http://forum.icann.org/lists/agp-limits-policy/msg00014.html Item 9: Travel Policy (10 mins) Travel Policy drafting team Open Discussion Comment Item 10: Status Updates (20 mins) 10.1 Board Update 10.2 Policy Items - 10.2 1 Whois Studies 10.3 Working Groups - 10.3.1 Fast Flux - 10.3.2 IRTP Part A PDP 10. 4 GNSO "Improvements" - 10. 4.1 PPSC Update - 10. 4. 2 OSC Update 10.5 GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Plan 10.6 . IDNccTLD Implementation Plan - 10.6.1 GNSO Comments - http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#plan-idn-cctlds - ( Comment period extended to 7 January 2009) 10.7 Variance between Council Recommendation and New gTLD Implementation Plan - 10.7.1 Where are we - 10.7.2 What do we do Item 11: AOB (11:00 Los Angeles, 14:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 20:00 Brussels, 06:00 Melbourne next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 19:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 11:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 14:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 16:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 19:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+1DST 18:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 03:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 03:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 06:00 (Friday 21 Nov.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Dial-in details: PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: COUNCIL For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0494 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4862 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7733 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5243 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1386 1-800-880-485 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-89-654 0800-999-636 BELGIUM 32-2-402-2432 0800-4-8360 BRAZIL 0800-8912038 CHILE 1230-020-0281 CHINA* 86-400-810-4760 10800-712-1193 10800-120-1193 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156463 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-15 800-700-167 DENMARK 45-7014-0238 8088-6075 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-00-04 080-511-1431 GERMANY 49-69-2222-52104 0800-216-1601 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0639 00800-12-5999 HONG KONG 852-2286-5632 800-964-136 HUNGARY 06-800-15227 INDIA 000-800-852-1216 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3500 IRELAND 353-1-246-0036 1800-931-782 ISRAEL 1-80-9303048 ITALY 39-02-3600-0326 800-906-585 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4763 00531-12-1149 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5154 00531-12-1149 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1314 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8121 MEXICO 001-866-627-0541 NETHERLANDS 31-20-710-9321 0800-023-4655 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4641 0800-443-793 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-14 800-11982 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072119 POLAND 00-800-1210067 PORTUGAL 8008-12179 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9613011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9197 800-120-4057 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-15 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93390 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1052 00798-14800-6323 SPAIN 34-91-414-15-44 800-099-279 SWEDEN 46-8-566-10-782 0200-887-612 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-7718 0800-000-038 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7346 00801-137-565 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65091 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9015 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3215 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2115 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7019-0812 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1415 0800-018-0795 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3439 USA 1-210-795-0472 877-818-6787 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3205 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Alternative RAA Motions
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

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

4 4

Current list of proposed RAA amendments attached and posted
by Liz Gasster Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

All, To facilitate discussion on Thursday, attached please find a current list of the proposed RAA amendments. The list can also be found under the agenda for 18 December on the Council workspace: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_18_dec_2008. This is an exact reprint of the information contained in the Services Report distributed last Friday (pp. 9-10). The two amendments added most recently are items 2.d and 2.e. Thanks, Liz

2 1

RE: [council] RrC Entries on the Priorities spreadsheet
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Thanks Avri. Now I recall. We used 0 for no opinion. Didn't seem to make much sense to express a constintuency opinion on that if our postion was for no studies. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] RrC Entries on the Priorities spreadsheet From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Tue, December 16, 2008 11:53 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> On 16 Dec 2008, at 18:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > what does zero (0) feasibility mean? by the values i suggested, 0 feasibility means that they either have no view on its feasibility or don't know. 1 mean one believes it is. -1 means one believes it isn't a.

1 0

RE: [council] RrC Entries on the Priorities spreadsheet
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

I don't know. We didn't really try to figure that out. Perhaps NA (Not applicable) would be a better representation for feasibility, given our position. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RrC Entries on the Priorities spreadsheet From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, December 16, 2008 11:40 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Thanks Tim. One question: what does zero (0) feasibility mean? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 11:44 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] RrC Entries on the Priorities spreadsheet > > Attached. I also uploaded it to the Wiki site, but not sure > if that was useful or not. > > Tim > >

1 0