June 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

draft of 1 slide report
by Avri Doria June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

hi, SO reports are down to one required slide. here is my draft. comments welcome, though there isn't much time. a.

2 5

IDNC Report
by Avri Doria June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

Hi, The latest version is attached. I would like to suggest that we immediately activate a drafting team to produce a draft comment for this paper. It is important that we have a draft response ready in time to discuss at our next meeting. thanks a. a copy of the current draft - allegedly final, but not yet guaranteed to be final final.

2 2

GNSO Council resolutions 25 June 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the decisions and motions that were passed by the GNSO Council at the Open meeting in Paris on Wednesday 25 June 2008. Kind regards, Glen ............................................................ Motion 1 ======== Inter Registrar Transfer Policy PDP on Denial Definition Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes and seconded by Tim Ruiz Whereas, The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, The PDP regarding Clarification of Reasons for Denial has reached the deliberation stage, following the issue if a Final Report dated 9 April 2008, and a drafting group was launched by the Council on 17 April 2008 to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed (numbers 5, 7, 8 and 9 in the IRTP), The drafting group delivered a Final Draft Report dated 4 June 2008, proposing new texts for denial reasons number 8 and 9, while suggesting that denial reasons 5 and 7 be considered within the proposed PDP for Issue Set C as per the Council resolution of 8 May 2008, in order to assure consistency with related aspects to be covered by that PDP, The proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 are drafted as follows: Denial reason 8 "The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name" Denial reason 9 "A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, meaning transfer to the Registrar of Record, has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy" The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To consider denial reasons number 5 and 7 within the context of the foreseen PDP for Issue Set C, while withdrawing them from the current PDP on Clarification of Reasons for Denial, To request that ICANN web staff post the proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 for constituency and public comments and report back to Council with a summary of the comments received, for the Council's consideration and decisions as to recommending a change of these IRTP provisions in line with the proposed texts. Passed unanimously by voice vote Motion 2 ======== Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report - Part A - Decision on PDP Motion proposed by Avri Doria seconded by Jordi Iparraguirre. Whereas, The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008, An issues report GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; "New IRTP Issues" was issued on 23 May 2008, The issues report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO Resolved: The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report on Part A. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Motion 2a ========================================= Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Tim Ruiz. Whereas: The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report - Part A The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the bylaws, The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to address the three issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC. That a charter will be drafted for this working in 14 days and that this charter will contain the required work items, milestones especially those related to bylaws mandated constituency reviews and public comment periods, and guidelines for WG procedures. This charter will be discussed and decided upon at the next GNSO council meeting following the release of the charter. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Motion 3 ========= WHOIS motion as amended, proposed by Chuck Gomes Whereas: On 27 March 2007 the Council resolved to form a group of volunteers to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS'; develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008 On 16 April the Government Advisory Committee submitted to the ICANN Board recommendations for future studies of WHOIS On 22 May the group of volunteers submitted a report to the Council offering two opposing viewpoints on whether studies of WHOIS should be conducted There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted. Before finalizing a decision regarding whether any studies should be conducted, it should be useful to 1) understand the full set of hypotheses to be tested, 2) determine which of those hypotheses, if tested, might provide useful direction with regard to Whois policy, and 3) to ensure that the collection of hypotheses adequately cover alternative view points with regard to Whois policy. Resolved: To reconvene another group of volunteers, which may include members of the earlier group and/or new volunteers to: Review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those recommendations and that request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses. Deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council within 6 weeks. The Council will then decide whether any potential studies should be further considered, and if so, identify hypotheses that it would like the staff to determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames for testing. Motion passed unanimously. Motion 4 ======== Motion on WG Chair for PDP WG on Fast Flux Whereas, The PDP WG has been formed on Fast Flux, and The Fast Flux PDP charter requires the election of chair or co-chairs and the appointment of a council liaison, and Mike O'Connor has been suggested by a joint meeting of the GNSO council and the Fast Flux WG, and Mike Rodenbaugh volunteered to serve as council liaison to the working group Resolved: Mike O'Connor is elected as chair of the PDP WG on Fast Flux and Mike Rodenbaugh is appointed GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP WG on Fast Flux. Motion 5 ======== Front Running Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes Whereas, On 17 March 2008, the ICANN board referred a question about Front Running to the GNSO council, and On 8 May 2008 created a drafting team to define a pre-issues research effort and asked the staff to prepare a response to the questions, and On 29 May 2008 ICANN staff prepared a response to the question asked during the 8 May Council meeting, and whereas this report recommended that more information was needed to proceed, and Information is needed to determine whether the changes recommended for the AGP will affect front running, Resolved: The council puts the drafting team effort on hold until such time as current research efforts are completed. GNSO Improvements ================= Council agreed to open a 21 day public comment period on The GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan of 21 June 2008 prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team as documented in GNSO Improvements_top-level-plan_update-080521.pdf Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council voting patterns 2005 – 2008
by Denise Michel June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

There has been much discussion recently, in connection with the GNSO Improvements Report and proposed Council structures, about the voting patterns in the GNSO Council. We thought you might find some Council voting statistics helpful. The attached paper presents data on votes taken in the GNSO Council from January 2005 through May 2008. The data (compiled by Glen de Saint Gery) was analyzed (by Olof Nordling) to identify potential correlations in voting patterns between constituencies. A sample of 28 votes was analyzed because, for this time period, 28 votes were taken by roll call and show identifiable votes for each constituency, where the outcome was not unanimous. Please contact Staff if you have questions about the attached or need additional information. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN VP Policy policy-staff(a)icann.org

1 0

Motions for tomorrow.
by Avri Doria June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

Hi, I have started a motions page for tomorrows meetings on the GNSO workspace I have put Chuck's motion on Whois Studies on the page and the motion i proposed, as amended, on GNSO "Improvements" I wil add others as I have them. The page can be reached through the workspace or directly at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?25_june_2008_motions a.

2 3

WHOIS studies requested by GAC
by Bruce Tonkin June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

Hello All, For information, here is some information on the WHOIS studies requested by the GAC. Here is the original document: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf Below is a plain text extraction. Regards, Bruce Tonkin RE: GAC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHOIS STUDIES In its Communiqué during the 30th ICANN meeting in Los Angeles, California, the GAC issued the following statement: The GAC reiterates its recommendation outlined in the GAC WHOIS principles that a study on uses and misuses of WHOIS data should be undertaken by ICANN and is prepared to contribute to the elaboration of the terms of reference of such a study. As a follow-up to the above statement and to the GAC WHOIS Principles, the GAC is pleased to submit its recommendations regarding the terms of reference for WHOIS studies to the ICANN Board. These recommendations will also be shared with the GNSO as a contribution to the GNSO Council's efforts to solicit input from the public regarding WHOIS studies. First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding: * the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and * the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data. Once this basic data has been collected and collated, the GAC recommends that a further study be directed toward answering the following questions: 1. To what extent are the legitimate uses of gTLD WHOIS data curtailed or prevented by use of proxy or privacy registration services? 2. What is the economic impact of restrictions on some or all of the legitimate uses of WHOIS? 3. Are technical measures available that could effectively curtail misuse of data published on WHOIS databases while preserving legitimate use and open access to the databases? 4. Are there methods employed by registrars to detect fraudulent domain name registrations? If so, how successful are they and what do they do with that information? 5. What is the percentage of domain name registrants who are natural persons versus legal persons (or entities)? 6. What is the percentage of domain name registrations that are registered for and/or are used for commercial purposes versus those registered for non-commercial or personal use? If possible, the data should be broken down by geographic (e.g. by continent) locations. 7. What is the historical trend and current percentage of the registrars' and their affiliates' proxy and privacy registrations in relation to the total number of domain name registrations in gTLDs? 8. What is the percentage of registrars and all affiliates that offer proxy or privacy registrations? 9. What are the relative percentages of legal persons and natural persons that are gTLD registrants that also utilize proxy or privacy services? 10. What are the relative percentages of domain names used for commercial versus non-commercial purposes that are registered using proxy or privacy services? 11. What is the percentage of domain names registered using proxy or privacy services that have been associated with fraud or other illegal activity versus the percentage of domain names not using such services that have been associated with fraud or illegal activity? In view of the recent adoption by ICANN of a procedure for handling conflicts with national privacy laws, the GAC also urges ICANN to address the following questions in the WHOIS study: 12. Since gTLD registries and registrars conduct business globally, which laws in which jurisdiction appropriately apply to their transactions and in particular to their WHOIS contractual obligations? 13. What are the legal jurisdictional issues raised by gTLD registries and registrars that adhere to local law applicable to domain name registrations and WHOIS requirements, but may then be in contravention to other legal jurisdictions where they conduct business? 14. May a gTLD domain name registrant who is a legal resident of one country apply for a domain name in another and claim to be under the legal jurisdiction of the latter and not the former? 15. How can conflicts of laws be resolved in a global domain name space? The GAC believes that the compilation and analysis of data in response to the above questions will create the necessary factual foundation for further discussions on the necessity, scope, and impact of potential modifications to policies regarding WHOIS data. The GAC membership also stands ready to facilitate access to national sources of expertise, best practices and other relevant data. Yours sincerely Janis Karklins Chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee, Ambassador of Latvia to France CC: GNSO Council

1 0

Re: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO "Improvments"
by Gomes, Chuck June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

You are correct Avri but some may remember the goal in the plan. Your call. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 02:03 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO "Improvments" Hi Chuck, I have no problem adding 'by 27 June' to the end of the last sentence as this is the date indicated in the plan, though I thought the last sentence had already covered it by stating. "... request(s) that constituencies and nomcom appointees begin the task of naming representatives to serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Top Level Plan. Or are you suggesting anther change I am not understanding? thanks a. On 22 Jun 2008, at 07:41, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Avri, > > It looks good to me except it might be helpful to request that > constituencies identify one member each foe each of the two steering > committees by the Council meeting on 25 June if possible. > > Chuck > > > Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 05:27 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO > "Improvments" > > > Hi > > Based on my understanding of the results of today's meeting, I have > drafted the following motion. > > thanks > > a. > > > Motion: Avri Doria > Second: > > > Whereas it is expected that ICANN Board of Directors will adopt > recommendations for GNSO "Improvements" and in response to Board > resolution 2008.02.15.03 that directed the ICANN Staff in consultation > with GNSO to develop an implementation plan > > And whereas such a plan was developed by the Planning Team composed of > staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation, > > Therefore: > > The GSNO Council approves the Framework defined in GNSO Improvements - > Top Level Plan of 21 June 2008 prepared by the GNSO Improvements > Planning Team as documented in (url) and request that constituencies > and nomcom appointees begin the task of naming representatives to > serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Top Level Plan. > > > >

2 4

Draft Whois Motion
by Gomes, Chuck June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Mike, Tim, Liz and I would like to submit the attached motion for consideration in our Council meeting this week. Please distribute it to your constituencies ASAP and discuss it on Tuesday so that we can act on it on Wednesday. Of course, if anyone has alternative motions, they are welcome. Chuck

1 0

Re: [council] Proposed Travel Policy
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be June 21, 2008

June 21, 2008

> sounds great as its all users money > We had briefly discussed the Council submitting a comment on the > proposed SO travel funding. To put the current proposal in perspective > you need to first look at the projected contributions that come through > the SOs in the currently proposed budget for FY09: > > GNSO: $56,051,000 > ccNSO: $2,300,000 > ASO: $823,000 > > Based on that, the percentage of each SOs contribution that is being > handed back to fund travel is as follows: > > GNSO: $184,800 (0.33% of contribution) > ccNSO: $170,400 (7.41% of contribution) > ASO: $127,200 (15.46% of contribution) > > In my opinion, there is no rationale that justifies these returns for > travel funding. > > The majority of the members of the Registrar Constituency opposes the > proposed model, and in fact believe that no travel funding should be > provided to the Council at all. However, understanding that the majority > of the Council believes otherwise I would like to propose that the > Council consider supporting one of these alternative funding models > (some additional detail may be needed): > > 1. Travel support to the SOs should be based in part on the level of > contrinbution to ICANN's budget. To the extent that travel support is > provided to the GNSO, the funds should be allocated to each constituency > and each constituency should have the authority to allocate that support > among its members and representatives for travel or other constituency > needs. > > 2. That all funds for SO travel support be pooled, and support would be > applied for on a demonstrated needs basis. See the proposal submitted by > Ken Stubbs at: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00006.html > > > Tim > >

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO "Improvments"
by Gomes, Chuck June 21, 2008

June 21, 2008

Avri, It looks good to me except it might be helpful to request that constituencies identify one member each foe each of the two steering committees by the Council meeting on 25 June if possible. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 05:27 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO "Improvments" Hi Based on my understanding of the results of today's meeting, I have drafted the following motion. thanks a. Motion: Avri Doria Second: Whereas it is expected that ICANN Board of Directors will adopt recommendations for GNSO "Improvements" and in response to Board resolution 2008.02.15.03 that directed the ICANN Staff in consultation with GNSO to develop an implementation plan And whereas such a plan was developed by the Planning Team composed of staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation, Therefore: The GSNO Council approves the Framework defined in GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan of 21 June 2008 prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team as documented in (url) and request that constituencies and nomcom appointees begin the task of naming representatives to serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Top Level Plan.

2 1