August 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Request for Issues Report re Registration Abuse Policies
by Greg Ruth Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

I would like to second Mike's motion. Greg ----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:36:58 AM Subject: [council] Request for Issues Report re Registration Abuse Policies Hello, A signficant discrepancy in registry contracts exists, with respect to language intended to allow registries to take action against abuse. The recent Afilias funnel request highlights the issue, as has a related discussion in the Fast Flux WG. The BC proposes a Council resolution to request Staff to lay out the facts and potential options around this issue, for further community discussion. I hope we can discuss this and have a vote at our next meeting on Sept. 4th. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh Councilor, Business Constituency Whereas: 1. ICANN’s mission is to ensure the security and stability of the DNS, and to develop policy reasonably related to that mission. 2. Various forms of DNS abuse, in isolation and/or in the aggregate, cause a less secure and stable DNS. 3. Some of ICANN’s gTLD registry agreements and appended registry-registrar agreements contain a provision such as Section 3.6.5 of the .info Registry Agreement, Appendix 8 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/info/appendix-08-08dec06.htm) 3.6.5. [Registrars] acknowledge and agree that Afilias reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Afilias, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees; (4) per the terms of the registration agreement or (5) to correct mistakes made by Afilias or any Registrar in connection with a domain name registration. Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute. 4. Afilias, the dotInfo Registry Operator, per its recent RSEP request, has sought to clarify and implement its specific abusive registration policy with respect to this provision. This request has been approved by ICANN, http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/afilias-to-icann-06aug08.pdf. 5. Some of ICANN’s gTLD registry agreements, notably the Verisign contracts for .com and .net, have no such provision. Other gTLD registry agreements do contain such provision, but the registry operators have not developed or have inconsistently developed abusive registration policies. The GNSO Council resolves to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff with respect to the following: 1. To identify and describe the various provisions in existing and previous gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements which relate to contracting parties’ ability to take action in response to abuse. 2. To identify and describe various provisions in a representative sampling of gTLD registration agreements which relate to contracting parties’ and/or registrants rights and obligations with respect to abuse. 3. To identify and describe any previous discussion in ICANN fora which substantively pertains to provisions of this nature in any of these agreements. 4. To identify and describe potential options for further Council consideration, relating to consistency and propriety of provisions of this nature in all of these agreements.

1 0

DNSO/GNSO funds
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes2-gnso-20jul04.htm Item 8: Any other business Bruce Tonkin stated that ICANN was requesting what should be done with the money collected by the constituencies for use by the Names Council that was currently in a separate account but managed by ICANN. The general discussion was consistent with a previous Council motion http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml on the topic that the funds should remain with ICANN as a contingency fund for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml Item 8. Budget update. GNSO Secretariat to provide: - report on current balance of GNSO account - procedures in place by ICANN to manage the account on behalf of the GNSO. The Secretary reported that after all payments had been made, the unencumbered funds amounted to $24.923.63. Bruce Tonkin stated that Council needed to make a decision who had the authority to operate on the GNSO account that would continue to be managed by ICANN. Bruce Tonkin proposed that: The GNSO Secretariat could authorize expenditure from the GNSO account as authorized by the GNSO Council chair to a limit of $1,000 U.S. The motion was passed unanimously by the GNSO Council. Decision 8: The GNSO Secretariat could authorize expenditure from the GNSO account as authorized by the GNSO Council chair to a limit of $1,000 U.S. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 3

Travel Funding
by Gomes, Chuck Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

The RyC requests Cairo travel funding for Carolyn Hoover, Chief Executive Officer, DotCooperation LLC (.coop). Carolyn would not be able to attend the ICANN meetings in Cairo without travel funding assistance. She has been a consistent and constructive participant in ICANN policy matters within the RyC ever since dotCOOP joined the RyC many years ago, so we are very pleased that she will be able to participate in-person in Cairo. She is committed to actively participating in as many ICANN open meetings as possible and to especially represent the views of a small gTLD registry. Chuck Gomes

2 4

ICANN Board meeting agenda 28 Aug 08
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/ Review Minutes from 31 July / 1 August Special Board Meeting President's Monthly Report GNSO Council Restructuring Nominating Committee's Recommendation for ICANN Bylaws Change regarding Criteria for Board Member Selection Redelegation of the .MS (Montserrat) Domain Ombudsman Budget Independent Reviews Status Report Board Finance Committee Report Board Governance Committee Report Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for selection of the next Nominating Committee Chair Board's Compensation Committee Report President's Strategy Committee Report Other Business Board Executive Session

1 0

Request for Issues Report re Registration Abuse Policies
by Mike Rodenbaugh Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

Hello, A signficant discrepancy in registry contracts exists, with respect to language intended to allow registries to take action against abuse. The recent Afilias funnel request highlights the issue, as has a related discussion in the Fast Flux WG. The BC proposes a Council resolution to request Staff to lay out the facts and potential options around this issue, for further community discussion. I hope we can discuss this and have a vote at our next meeting on Sept. 4th. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh Councilor, Business Constituency Whereas: 1. ICANN's mission is to ensure the security and stability of the DNS, and to develop policy reasonably related to that mission. 2. Various forms of DNS abuse, in isolation and/or in the aggregate, cause a less secure and stable DNS. 3. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements and appended registry-registrar agreements contain a provision such as Section 3.6.5 of the .info Registry Agreement, Appendix 8 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/info/appendix-08-08dec06.htm) 3.6.5. [Registrars] acknowledge and agree that Afilias reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Afilias, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees; (4) per the terms of the registration agreement or (5) to correct mistakes made by Afilias or any Registrar in connection with a domain name registration. Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute. 4. Afilias, the dotInfo Registry Operator, per its recent RSEP request, has sought to clarify and implement its specific abusive registration policy with respect to this provision. This request has been approved by ICANN, <http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/afilias-to-icann-06aug08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/afilias-to-icann-06aug08.pdf. 5. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements, notably the Verisign contracts for .com and .net, have no such provision. Other gTLD registry agreements do contain such provision, but the registry operators have not developed or have inconsistently developed abusive registration policies. The GNSO Council resolves to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff with respect to the following: 1. To identify and describe the various provisions in existing and previous gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements which relate to contracting parties' ability to take action in response to abuse. 2. To identify and describe various provisions in a representative sampling of gTLD registration agreements which relate to contracting parties' and/or registrants rights and obligations with respect to abuse. 3. To identify and describe any previous discussion in ICANN fora which substantively pertains to provisions of this nature in any of these agreements. 4. To identify and describe potential options for further Council consideration, relating to consistency and propriety of provisions of this nature in all of these agreements.

1 0

Cairo Travel Meeting - 28 August
by Avri Doria Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Hi, Agenda: Duration; 1 hour max Note: This is a non voting meeting - any decisions will need to be confirmed by the meeting on 4 Sept 1. Allocation of travel slots for Cairo 2. If there is time and inclination: discussion of next steps in responding to the Staff Determined Travel Policy (SDTP) for the GNSO. The information for 28 August meeting. Default Travel spots: BC - Mike Rodenbaugh. IPC - Ute Decker ISPC - Tony Harris NCUC - Robin Gross RrC - Clarke Walton RyC - Carolyn Hoover This leaves 4 spots and 5 names BC- Zahid Jamil BC - Philip Sheppard IPC - Kristina Rosette ISPC - Greg Ruth NCUC - Norbert Klein However: Ute Decker and Greg Ruth can get partial support (travel + some expenses) because of Nomcom status. While I am waiting for confirmation I do believe there are funds that can be used to cover the balance from a budget other then the Staff Determined Travel Policy budget. We have been informed, definitely, that the SDTP will only provide full coverage and will not allow for partial support or for splitting support between 2 people. thanks a. Excepts from email with requests: The BC needs for travel support for Cairo are: 1. Mike Rodenbaugh. 2. Zahid Jamil who writes: "I will be unable to attend Cairo without support for air fare and hotel since the organisation I represent is a very small entity, without any available funding." 3. Philip Sheppard who writes: "I request travel support in my representative capacity on behalf of commercial users who are affected by ICANN policies. While my association is willing to donate my time it is profoundly unreasonable to expect it to also fund out of pocket travel costs for work that is fundamental to ICANN when ICANN's budget is in excess of USD 60 million". This is an official request to let you know that NCUC would like to request travel and lodging support for two of its GNSO Councillors: 1) Robin Gross 2) Norbert Klein. IPC 1. Full funding for Ute Decker; and 2. Partial funding (hotel only) for Kristina Rosette. The submission from the ISPCP for travel support for the Cairo meeting are; 1. Tony Harris 2. Greg Ruth The RyC requests Cairo travel funding for Carolyn Hoover, Chief Executive Officer, DotCooperation LLC (.coop). Carolyn would not be able to attend the ICANN meetings in Cairo without travel funding assistance. She has been a consistent and constructive participant in ICANN policy matters within the RyC ever since dotCOOP joined the RyC many years ago, so we are very pleased that she will be able to participate in-person in Cairo. She is committed to actively participating in as many ICANN open meetings as possible and to especially represent the views of a small gTLD registry. The Registrar Constituency requests travel funding for Clarke Walton for the Cairo meeting. Clarke is responsible for assisting the Registrar Constituency with all facets of the GNSO policy development process.

1 0

geo draft document
by Olga Cavalli Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Hi everyone, As discussed in our last council call, a drafting team convened to draft a document in response to the Geographic Regions request for comments made to the GNSO. Please find attached the draft document that was prepared by the drafting team,,for you consideration. PhilippThe document is structured with an introduction, the support by the GNSO of the formation of a wide working group and then a list of principles that could be adopted into the working group terms of reference. Thanks to all who contributed to build the document! Glen, please upload the document into the draft document section of our web page. Best regards, Olga

1 0

Update on names
by Avri Doria Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Hi, I have collected a list of 9 names from 4 constituencies so far (including the 2 council members who probably have partial Nomcom support) Two constituencies have indicated that they were holding their meetings to discuss this today, so I have extended the deadline until this evening. I will hold off publishing the full list until then. ( though of course everyone has sent their individualist to the council list already) I am still looking (with others) for a supplemental funding source to cover the hotel balance for the two council members who may have Nomcom support, funding which will be necessary unless the staff relents on allowing for a partial allocation from the budget. thanks a.

1 0

FW: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 26, 2008

Aug. 26, 2008

Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 Hi Glen The submission from the ISPCP for travel support for the Cairo meeting are; 1. Tony Harris 2. Greg Ruth Regards Tony

1 0

IPC Request for Travel Support for Cairo Meeting
by Rosette, Kristina Aug. 26, 2008

Aug. 26, 2008

The IPC requests the following travel support for the Cairo meeting 1. Full funding for Ute Decker; and 2. Partial funding (hotel only) for Kristina Rosette. Funding is not requested for IPC GNSO Councilor Cyril Chua because he is unable to attend the meeting due to a scheduling conflict. Kristina Rosette

2 1