March 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Posting of Initial Report regarding Transfers Policy PDP
by Olof Nordling March 17, 2008

March 17, 2008

Dear Council members, FYI - the attached Initial Report for the Transfers Policy PDP on clarification of four reasons for transfer denials will shortly be posted on the GNSO site and the ICANN site for public comments. Very best regards Olof

1 0

Comment Period Extended on Travel Support Policies
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG March 14, 2008

March 14, 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/announcements/announcement-13mar08.htm Comment Period Extended on Travel Support Policies 13 March 2008 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has extended the public comment period on the development of Travel Support policies for volunteers who make ICANN’s community-based work possible. Volunteers from across the globe support ICANN’s work by serving on ICANN’s various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. The goal of this assessment of travel support policies is to update current policies, develop a consistent approach to participation and travel support, and determine what is sustainable and reasonable in terms of the budget. While this not a formal policy development process as defined in ICANN Bylaws, input is being sought and will be used in the spirit of the commitment to openness and transparency. The comment period is being extended by a week and will close on 24 April 2008. The comment forum, as well as background information, is available online at http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#travel-policy. Please submit comments to: <travel-support-policy(a)icann.org> -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Transmittal of SAC 025 to GNSO
by Avri Doria March 11, 2008

March 11, 2008

Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello(a)icann.org> > Date: 11 March 2008 15:01:01 EDT > To: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" > <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, > "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > Subject: Transmittal of SAC 025 to GNSO > > > > 11 March 2008 > > Transmittal of SAC025: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS to the GNSO > > At the direction of the ICANN Board of Directors, the Security and > Stability Advisory Committee invites the GNSO to consider the > accompanying Advisory, SAC 025: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS. A PDF of > the Advisory may be downloaded from the ICANN web site at > > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf > > Cyber-criminals and Internet miscreants use Fast Flux hosting to > frustrate anticrime efforts aimed at locating and shutting down web > sites used for illegal purposes. Fast flux hosting supports a wide > variety of cyber-crime activities (fraud, identity theft, online > scams) and is considered one of the most serious threats to online > activities today. One variant of fast flux hosting, "double flux", > exploits the domain name registration and name resolution services. > > SAC 025 describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting and > fast flux service networks and explains how the DNS is exploited to > abet criminal activities that employ fast flux hosting. The Advisory > discusses current and possible methods of mitigating fast flux > hosting at various points in the Internet and identifies those > methods that SSAC considers practical and sensible. > > SSAC asks that the GNSO consider measures and best practices > enumerated in SAC 025 and how these might be incorporated into > standard operating procedures or future policies. While these > measures alone cannot eliminate fast flux hosting, they can greatly > improve the overall Internet security baseline if implemented > broadly and uniformly. > > We thank you in advance for your time and consideration. > > David Piscitello > ICANN Senior Security Technologist, > On behalf of the SSAC

1 0

RE: [council] Note to counsel on DT motion
by Tim Ruiz March 10, 2008

March 10, 2008

Avri, just some minor typos. Seems like some policy work goes on that long sometimes, but 1800 years is pushing it :) In line below with additions in brackets, deletions in brackets with DELETE: Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Note to counsel on DT motion From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Mon, March 10, 2008 10:05 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> hi, Outside of salutations and politeness at the end, this is a draft of the note to ICANN Legal counsel regarding aspects of Domain Tasting. I have tried to capture the questions I know about. If anyone has another question, or recommends edits to what is written, please let the me/the list know. I plan to send this out after 24 hours - i.e. shortly after 1500 UTC 11 March. thanks a. ------ On 6 March 20[0]8, the GSNO council drafted a motion http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/dnt-motion-6mar08.shtml to curb domain tasting. It would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an add grace period from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. An exemption may be sought for a particular month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion. The GSNO council has sent this motion out for public comment until 28 March at which point public comments and any updates to constituency statements will be considered as part of the GSNO council process for resolving the Domain Tasting PDP that is currently open and in the deliberations stage. As part of the GNSO council's discussions on 6 March, we also decided to ask for Legal Counsel to review the motion and to let us know whether it is in scope for the GNSO Council. While the PDP itself had been deemed within scope by Legal Counsel, there were questions as to whether the motion itself remained in scope. Additionally, the following specific issues were raised: a. The .com agreement states that Consensus Policies may not "prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services" (see Section 3.1(b) (v)(A) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06.htm) . Would a policy dictating how much VeriSign could refund registrars during the AGP be considered a prescription or limitation on the price of Registry Services? The question extends to whether this policy would, therefore, [be] unenforceable. b. If the answer to the preceding question is affirmative, would a policy eliminating the Add Grace Period be considered a prescription or limitation on the price of Registry Services? As we intend to resume work on this at the beginning of April, I would appreciate[DELETE:, if it is at all possible,] having your response by that time.

1 0

Note to counsel on DT motion
by Avri Doria March 10, 2008

March 10, 2008

hi, Outside of salutations and politeness at the end, this is a draft of the note to ICANN Legal counsel regarding aspects of Domain Tasting. I have tried to capture the questions I know about. If anyone has another question, or recommends edits to what is written, please let the me/the list know. I plan to send this out after 24 hours - i.e. shortly after 1500 UTC 11 March. thanks a. ------ On 6 March 208, the GSNO council drafted a motion http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/dnt-motion-6mar08.shtml to curb domain tasting. It would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an add grace period from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. An exemption may be sought for a particular month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion. The GSNO council has sent this motion out for public comment until 28 March at which point public comments and any updates to constituency statements will be considered as part of the GSNO council process for resolving the Domain Tasting PDP that is currently open and in the deliberations stage. As part of the GNSO council's discussions on 6 March, we also decided to ask for Legal Counsel to review the motion and to let us know whether it is in scope for the GNSO Council. While the PDP itself had been deemed within scope by Legal Counsel, there were questions as to whether the motion itself remained in scope. Additionally, the following specific issues were raised: a. The .com agreement states that Consensus Policies may not "prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services" (see Section 3.1(b) (v)(A) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06.htm) . Would a policy dictating how much VeriSign could refund registrars during the AGP be considered a prescription or limitation on the price of Registry Services? The question extends to whether this policy would, therefore, unenforceable. b. If the answer to the preceding question is affirmative, would a policy eliminating the Add Grace Period be considered a prescription or limitation on the price of Registry Services? As we intend to resume work on this at the beginning of April, I would appreciate, if it is at all possible, having your response by that time.

1 0

Some initial thoughts on Working Groups
by Avri Doria March 10, 2008

March 10, 2008

Hi, Attached is a brief set of notes on considerations for forming WGs. This is the deliverable that was discussed briefly at our Thursday meeting in ND. It is my personal opinion formed from participation in and chair of many working groups, and similar groups, over the years. as such it has no status other then as a suggestion for a possible point from which to start conversations. I am sure there are more considerations then what I have included and I am also sure that there are many ways of looking at this issue that I have not touched upon. I believe that we will need to spend some time on our plans to dealing with the GNSO restructuring at our next meeting on 27 March. At that time I will suggest that we form a standing Committee to work on guidelines for WGs. Perhaps this Standing Committee will also be able to deal with the questions on PDP as they are fundamentally linked with WGs. In any case this draft is not for discussion at today's (6 March) meeting and is meant as one starting place for the discussion we, the GNSO community and the ICANN community at large need to engage in. thanks a.

3 3

ICANN Board Director seat 14, election results
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG March 8, 2008

March 8, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Here are the results of the election for ICANN Board Director to hold seat 14. Rita Rodin was the only candidate and received 19 positive votes (14 or more being the required number to win). 19 Votes FOR 1 vote AGAINST 1 Vote ABSTAIN 4 ballots were not returned by the close of voting, counting for 6 votes. Please find the raw results below and please check your vote. The Council will confirm the election results at the meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008, and thereafter ICANN General Counsel will be informed of the outcome. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Raw Results: Bfb05cf95aD:20080229181701:[X] For Rita Rodin B1bbaf8034D:20080301063107:[X] For Rita Rodin B799fa7aedD:20080301114857:[X] For Rita Rodin Be329adadbD:20080301224740:[X] For Rita Rodin B008659272D:20080303002612:[X] For Rita Rodin B1b2b8436aD:20080303003146:[x] For Rita Rodin Bedb73c6e2D:20080303073714:[x] For Rita Rodin B693db9573D:20080303104541:[X] Abstain B7ba8ce834D:20080304080723:[x] For Rita Rodin Baf222ce46D:20080304095723:[X] For Rita Rodin B5030dca26D:20080304111100:[X] For Rita Rodin B291aaedf7D:20080306151214:[X] For Rita Rodin B04fab4aa1D:20080306180915:[X] For Rita Rodin Bb15799844D:20080307004326:[X] For Rita Rodin B8b886ddd2D:20080307052532:[X] For Rita Rodin B8b886ddd2D:20080307052755:[X] For Rita Rodin B2c7c286c2D:20080307055007:[X] For Rita Rodin B6aa44f6b8D:20080307065756:[X] Against Rita Rodin B8b886ddd2D was received twice; eliminate first occurence: Apply weights: 1 Bfb05cf95aD:20080229181701:[X] For Rita Rodin 2 B1bbaf8034D:20080301063107:[X] For Rita Rodin 1 B799fa7aedD:20080301114857:[X] For Rita Rodin 1 Be329adadbD:20080301224740:[X] For Rita Rodin 2 B008659272D:20080303002612:[X] For Rita Rodin 1 B1b2b8436aD:20080303003146:[x] For Rita Rodin 1 Bedb73c6e2D:20080303073714:[x] For Rita Rodin 1 B7ba8ce834D:20080304080723:[x] For Rita Rodin 1 Baf222ce46D:20080304095723:[X] For Rita Rodin 1 B5030dca26D:20080304111100:[X] For Rita Rodin 2 B291aaedf7D:20080306151214:[X] For Rita Rodin 1 B04fab4aa1D:20080306180915:[X] For Rita Rodin 2 Bb15799844D:20080307004326:[X] For Rita Rodin 1 B8b886ddd2D:20080307052755:[X] For Rita Rodin 1 B2c7c286c2D:20080307055007:[X] For Rita Rodin 19 For Rita Rodin 1 B693db9573D:20080303104541:[X] Abstain 1 Abstain 1 B6aa44f6b8D:20080307065756:[X] Against Rita Rodin 1 Against Rita Rodin -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN requests public comments on GNSO Improvements Report 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG March 8, 2008

March 8, 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/public_comment/ Comments open from 25 February 2008 to 25 March 2008 Comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/ Please submit comments to: <gnso-improvements-report-2008(a)icann.org> Explanation: On February 15, 2008, ICANN's Board acknowledged receipt of the "GNSO Improvements Report" and indicated that it would like to receive final public comments on the Report to enable it to consider and implement the Report's recommendations as soon as possible. The Board has directed ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. A copy of the Board's resolution regarding this matter can be found here. You can read the full report here [PDF, 197K] and see a web page with more information here. http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/ The ICANN Board Governance Committee's "GNSO Review Working Group" developed the Report's set of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. The Report reflects the Working Group's examination of many aspects of the GNSO's functioning, including the use of working groups and the overall policy development process (PDP), and the structure of the GNSO Council and its constituencies. The Board Governance Committee determined that the GNSO Improvements working group had fulfilled its charter and forwarded the report to the Board for consideration." Comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/ Please submit comments to: <gnso-improvements-report-2008(a)icann.org> -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN’s GNSO Solicits Public Comments on Draft Resolution to Curb Domain Tasting
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG March 8, 2008

March 8, 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/public_comment/#domain-tasting ICANN’s GNSO Solicits Public Comments on Draft Resolution to Curb Domain Tasting Comment period 7 March 2008 to 28 March 2008 Please submit comments to: <domain-tasting-motion(a)icann.org> Comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/domain-tasting-motion/ Explanation: The GNSO Council is considering the issue of "domain tasting", a term used to describe the case when someone registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through pay-per-click advertising). If the name is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept. If not, the current "add grace period" (AGP) - where domains can be returned within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant. Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of domains registered and returned within the AGP. ICANN staff prepared an Issues Report in June 2007 http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-… and subsequently a GNSO working group published an Outcomes Report in October 2007. http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-… The GNSO Council decided on 31 October 2007 to launch a policy development process (PDP) on domain tasting. An Initial Report http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-initial-report-domain-… was produced for public comment, outlining the policy development process, possible actions that might be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions. Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report (posted 8 February) http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-final-report-domain-tasting-08feb08.… for GNSO Council review and action. Members of the Council subsequently drafted this motion http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/dnt-motion-6mar08.shtml to curb domain tasting. It would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an add grace period from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. An exemption may be sought for a particular month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion. The GNSO Council will consider public comments and constituency impact statements regarding the draft motion and incorporate them into a further draft for Council consideration at its scheduled 17 April meeting. Please submit comments to: <domain-tasting-motion(a)icann.org> Comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/domain-tasting-motion/ -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 6 March 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG March 8, 2008

March 8, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the motions that were passed by the GNSO Council at the teleconference on Thursday, 6 March, 2008. Kind regards, Glen ...................................................................... 1. Kristina Rosette's friendly amendment on the language in 1a of the included draft motion was accepted by Mike Rodenbaugh. a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund TO A REGISTRAR for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of THAT REGISTRAR'S net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. 2. Chuck Gomes proposed an amendment which removed the original #2 from the draft motion that carried i.e. The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an “ICANN adopted specification or polic[y] prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars” in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. The amendment succeed. In favour: Philip Sheppard, Bilal Beiram, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Carlos Souza, Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria (one vote each) Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes each) Opposed: Mike Rodenbaugh (1 vote) Motion 3 (a)(which contains the draft motion for public comment) ================================================================= Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: 1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses. The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008. 2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008. 3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council to vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008. 4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008 The motion carried Motion 3 (b) Draft Domain Tasting Design Team Motion for public comment =========================================================== Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”); Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1.The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator: a.During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrars net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary. c.In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator. 2.Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically; a.ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining; i.How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and ii.Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff. The motion carried Motion 4 ========= Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website; Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/ Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries, Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies The GNSO Council RESOLVES: ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes. 10 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Bilal Beiram, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) 14 Votes against: Robin Gross, Carlos Souza (one vote each) Tom Keller, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes each) The motion carried. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA 1. Raising an Issue b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made. Proposal 5 ========== The GNSO Council resolved to send the draft of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Initial Report presented by Edmon Chung http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-idnc-initial-report-feb08.pdf to the IDNC as the GNSO response. The proposal was accepted unanimously Proposal 6 ========== The GNSO Council resolved to extend the deadline for the submission of constituency statements on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP to Friday 14 March 2008. The proposal was accepted unanimously -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0