August 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Motion relating to IRTP Denial Definaitons PDP
by Avri Doria 25 Aug '08

25 Aug '08

hi, I have started work on a motion in regard to the PDP. It can be found at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_sept_2008_motions As it is procedural to have a motion based on the recommendations, I am listing myself as the person moving it. It still needs a second and I am sure that it needs discussion and edits (for example I have yet to insert all the Whereas content). thanks a.

2 1

FW: Cairo travel
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Aug '08

25 Aug '08

Subject: Cairo travel Dear Glen 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. Our third Councillor, Carlos de Souza, has obtained his own funding. We appreciate the help from ICANN greatly and look forward to seeing you in Cairo. Sincerely, Dr. Milton Mueller, Chair NCUC

2 1

August Policy Update
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Aug '08

25 Aug '08

[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] Dear All, Please note that the August Policy Update published earlier this month is available at: (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm) If you would like to receive these updates directly every month, all you have to do is sign up on ICANN's subscription page (http://www.icann.org/en/newsletter/) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org Contents 1. YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED ON POLICY ISSUES <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#1> 2. ICANN POLICY INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGERTIPS <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#2> 3. IMPROVING THE GNSO - AND ASSIGNING COUNCIL SEATS <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#3> 4. WHOIS - TO STUDY OR NOT TO STUDY? <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#4> 5. MAKING IT EASIER TO TRANSFER DOMAINS BETWEEN REGISTRARS <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#5> 6. HOW SHOULD WE DEAL WITH FAST FLUXING CYBERCRIMINALS?<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#6> 7. DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING - IF IT'S PREVALENT, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT? <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#7> 8. INTERNATIONALIZNG COUNTRY CODE TOP LEVEL DOMAINS<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#8> 9. IS IT TIME TO RE-CONSIDER ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS?<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#9> 10. CCNSO WELCOMES .DZ, .AM<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#10> 11. CCNSO IMPROVEMENT PLAN UNDERWAY<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#11> 12. AT-LARGE INVOLVEMENT IN ICANN CONTINUES TO GROW<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#12> 13. AT-LARGE - BRINGING AN INDIVIDUAL USER PERSPECTIVE TO POLICY DEVELOPMENT<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#13> 14. AT-LARGE ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#14> 15. NEW GLOBAL ASN POLICY TO BE IMPLEMENTED, FUTURE OF GLOBAL IPV4 POLICY UNCLEAR<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#15> 16. SSAC WORKING ON DNSSEC STATUS REPORT<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#16> 17. SSAC ANALYZES PHISHING<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#17> 18. SSAC REPORTS AND ADVISORIES AT A GLANCE<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm#18> The ICANN Policy Update contains brief summaries of issues being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as information on related policy development activities. The ICANN Policy Staff provides monthly updates in response to requests from the community for periodic summaries of ICANN's policy work. The goal of the Policy Update is to maximize transparency and encourage broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities. Links to additional information are included and readers are encouraged to go beyond these brief summaries to learn more about the ICANN community's work. As always, the Policy Staff welcomes comments and suggestions on how to improve its policy communications efforts. Please send these comments to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>.

3 2

ICANN Calls for Expressions of Interest to Host 2009 Meeting in Europe and 2010 Meeting in Africa
by Glen de Saint Géry 23 Aug '08

23 Aug '08

[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-22aug08-en.htm ICANN Calls for Expressions of Interest to Host 2009 Meeting in Europe and 2010 Meeting in Africa 22 August 2008 In accordance with ICANN's commitment to continuous improvement in the management of meetings, and in response to requests for advanced planning, ICANN today posts a call for Expressions of Interest to host meetings to be held in Europe on 25-30 October 2009, and in Africa on 7-12 February 2010. The objective is to routinely provide advice on locations for meetings 12 months ahead of schedule. EUROPE 25-30 October 2009 AFRICA 7-12 February 2010 ICANN Public Meetings draw individuals from around the globe and attract a wide range of participants who follow Internet addressing and policy issues. The meetings receive international press coverage and provide an ideal opportunity for participants, sponsors, and hosts to interact on key Internet issues. Organisations interested in the opportunity to host the Europe meeting in 2009 or the Africa meeting in 2010 should review the full Request for Proposals [PDF, 228K] before submitting an Expression of Interest. The specifications outlined in the Request for Proposals detail the anticipated required elements of an ICANN meeting and the minimum responsibilities of the hosting organisation. All interested parties should submit a completed Expression of Interest Form [PDF, 756K] via email to meeting(a)icann.org for consideration. Any inquiries regarding the call for expressions should be addressed to the ICANN Meeting Staff. The deadline for submissions is 15 October 2008. ICANN meetings constitute an essential part of ICANN's global consensus-building, policy development, and outreach efforts. We encourage your institution/organisation to consider submitting an Expression of Interest Form. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft minutes GNSO Council meeting 7 August 2008.
by Glen de Saint Géry 23 Aug '08

23 Aug '08

Dear All, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 7 August 2008. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Tim Ruiz 21 Aug '08

21 Aug '08

I don't really think there are any errors, although I agree that the document could have included some additional information that may have clarified. In any case, my proposal for Cairo would be the same. Allow at least one spot per constituency and let them decide how to allocate it. The ACs take care of their own as instructed in the policy, and per the policy the liaisons are covered outside of the 10 additional spots. That would be six for the Constituencies, one for the GNSO Chair, and three for the Council as a whole to decide. But regardless of how we do it, basing it on supporting Councilors who simply say they would/could not otherwise attend is not appropriate. Let the Constituencies decide if they want to support one of their Councilors' travel, or someone else they feel is important to have there. I propose that the two or three spots left should not to go Councilors but instead be considered for the Chairs of the WGs first, and then to others the Chairs of the WGs might suggest would be good to have in Cairo to the benefit of their policy work. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 8:54 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I prefixed my comments saying that this is how I read it. As Avri has pointed out, our first priority is to handle Cairo and for that meeting the issues of Liaisons is moot. In any case, my rationale is not built solely on the numbers (I have already found and reported two errors there). The first column explicitly includes the number of liaisons. If (for an extreme example, the GNSO had 10 liaison, then that would have increased the number supported by 5. If all of that were to go to non-liaison folk, that would severely distort the intent (more than the possible rounding error of dividing an odd number does now). In any case, I expect that staff will clarify. Alan At 19/08/2008 09:08 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >Please review the policy again. The Additional Support column of the >chart says "Half of Remaining Council Size and Chair." Half of the >remaining Council (less liaisons and NomCom) is 9, plus the Chair makes >10. That seems to add up right to me. > >The liaisons and NomCom are covered elsewhere in the policy. What the >Council has to come up with is a documented, transparent policy around >allocating the additional 10. Since support for the Chair seems to be an >automatic, that leaves 9 spots to deal with. But note the policy is >*very* clear that those spots do not have to go to Councilors (see the >sixth bullet under section 2.1 of the policy). > >So I think it is perfectly appropriate to allow the Constituencies to >each have at least one spot to allocate as best fits the needs of its >members and how the use of the funds would allow it to best contribute >to the policy process. That would leave three spots for the Council as a >whole to allocate. > >However, I would personnaly support giving two spots to the NCUC and >there appears to be some support for that within the RrC (ultimately, >if/when there is a vote on any allocation process I will vote the voice >of the RrC and not my own). I also suggest that any Chairs of WGs that >are active at the time be given preference for the remaining two or >three spots. > > >Tim > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for >FY09 >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 1:15 pm >To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >All of which follows is my understanding only. Alan > >At 18/08/2008 03:22 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > >Well its good to see the maths has improved. > >In terms of allocation we very much need to decide who. > >I would suggest given the limited nature of this funding that it > >applies to only elected > >Council members. > >This thus excludes nom com (who are funded by another budget), > >NomCom members are explicitly fully funded according to the new >Revised Travel Support Procedure (first sentence of 2.0 and 7th >bullet of 2.1 - the number of people funded was explicitly increase >above 50% to cover them). The NomCom appointee travel used to be in >the NomCom budget, but apparently is being moved here (or at least >the budget is presented as if it has). > > > and excludes liaisons who > >should be funded by their own base organisation's budget. > >The calculation of number of people eligible for funding was >augmented by the number of Liaisons (23 for the GNSO which only has >21 full Councillors), so Liaisons should be eligible for funding >under whatever rule is decided upon. But that implies the money >cannot just be divided among constituencies and NomCom appointees. In >my case, my current ALAC term is up at the end of the Cairo meeting. >Since I am a full ALAC member, I need no additional funding from the >GNSO budget for that meeting, so that money (I would guess) goes into >the general GNSO pool. > >After Cairo, but before July 2010, if I am replaced as Liaison by an >ALAC member, there would presumably still be no need for GNSO budget. >If I am replaced by someone not on the ALAC, that person would be >eligible for GNSO funding (perhaps with some back-room haggling >between the ALAC and GNSO). > >If the Board follows through on its plan to cut 50% of ALAC funding >in July 2010, the ALAC Liaison would presumably be eligible for at >least partial funding, regardless of his/her committee status (unless >that person was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC in which case they >would remain fully funded). > >Gee, its nice to have a simple, understandable, transparent policy. > >Alan > > >This seems to be the basis for the budget thinking anyway. > >Given that, then in terms of subsequent allocation that should be > >done by constituency - the > >body best placed to determine need. > > > >There is of course an ethical dimension to the use of these > >limited funds that those > >parties who benefit from business opportunity as a result of ICANN > >policy may wish to > >consider before accepting funding. > >Whether this ethical dimension applies equally to the BC - as a > >function to our recently > >growing membership of domainers - is to my mind an interesting question. > >Philip

8 9

RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Alan Greenberg 21 Aug '08

21 Aug '08

Reading the recent exchanges, it strikes me that the formal policy is somewhat at odds with the PDP methodology that ICANN is trying to institutionalize. The travel documents says "While the calculation of travel support funding is based in part on the size of each council and its liaisons, the SO can choose to support other constituency members based on what will best serve each SO's policy development work, e.g. working group members could be supported." At the same time, we are being told that WG's are the way to get the REAL work done. So if we are really effective, and just oversee the processes, and have lots of active, functioning WGs, we are faced with the choice of taking little travel money for Council itself, or telling our hard-working WG chairs and members, that they are largely on their own regarding funding. ICANN has formally adopted the BGC recommendations to move forcefully to a WG model for policy development; it seems strange that at the same instant, they are saying that there will be no funding unless Council is willing to give up some of the travel funding that, as Robin points out, started with the difficulty of some Councillors to attend ICANN meetings. It seems like a strange mixture of messages. Alan At 19/08/2008 03:06 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an intregal >part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden >participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under >that? > >My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding good >WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel funding for ICANN >meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules around >that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also Councilors, >not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or whatever. > >And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself. > >Tim > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for >FY09 >From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> >Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm >To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >No one has said Councilors are more important. > > >It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people" per se, but >specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development process. If you >want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are >contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly have >that conversation. But we should be clear what we are doing - right >now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up. > > >Robin > > > >On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more >important as Councilors than other GNSO members. If someone is devoting >considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether they are on the >Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their travel >needs if possible. > >Chuck > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On Behalf Of Robin Gross >Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM >To: Greg Ruth >Cc: Council GNSO >Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for >FY09 > > > >I agree with Greg. What began as a process to ensure councilors could >participate at council meetings has turned into something else entirely. > > >Robin > > > > > >On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote: > >Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding >should be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to >support WG chairs. I believe the original intent was not to progress WG >efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders (constituencies) >have an *equal* opportunity to participate. (I would think that a >responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to >participate *before* accepting the position.) Therefore, I am in favor >of dividing the funding more or less equally among the consituencies and >letting each decide how it can best support representation at ICANN >meetings. > > > > > > > > > > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > > > > > > > > > > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org

5 6

Some comments and first set of responses to travel-related questions
by Doug Brent 21 Aug '08

21 Aug '08

Dear GNSO Council, I have followed the discussion on travel procedure over the last few days. Clearly, there is some dissatisfaction with the new Community Travel Support Procedure, and there have been questions about its implementation, some of which seem to go back to the original discussion on this topic in 2007. So for those who haven't followed this from last February when public consultation began, a couple of quick comments: - the initial impetus here was to follow-up on the Council's request to fund additional travel to ICANN meetings; as most here know, opinions ranged from support all to provide no additional travel support - a key piece of feedback in the consultation was to allow for a good deal of flexibility in the allocation of funds to each Supporting Organisation; the intent was to not make the selection of funded travelers staff directed or too top down within an SO, in part, because the SOs are different and are in the best position to use travel funds in a way that advances their work; given the amount of discussion, maybe leaving this item as open was not right. - to allow for the fact that there are always a number of special cases with travel, the thought was to try and build up detailed implementation rules as the questions come in through a posted "Frequently Asked Question" (FAQ) list, as opposed to "baking in" an inflexible set of rules that don't work for ICANN travelers located throughout the world. If there is some staff support that can help at this time, so that this doesn't become a further distraction for the council, please let me know what kind of help we can provide. I have attached a document that addresses the first set of travel questions that have come up during the last week. These will be turned more into a FAQ form and posted, but I thought it was faster to get it to you this way now. Basically, it tries to make things as simple as possible for this first year in implementing the travel procedure. Also, the Cairo meeting is coming up so fast - the attached information will help us meet the goal of providing GNSO participants with additional travel support. This includes headcount-based funding instead of budget based. Also, it recognizes that the Council may want to take more time than is available now to get to a more sustainable approach to making its decisions as to who can be funded. As I've communicated separately to Avri, I'm personally committed to facilitating a review of this travel approach at the end of the year. I'll continue to monitor the travel-related threads, but suggest that you email travel-support(a)icann.org to get any specific travel-related questions answered. Of course, please email me directly as you see fit and I will respond. Best regards, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649

1 0

IDN TLD Allocation Implementation Processes
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Aug '08

20 Aug '08

[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-20aug08-en.htm IDN TLD Allocation Implementation Processes 20 August 2008 Following the progress on the IDN TLD allocation processes during the ICANN meeting in Paris a new area has been made available to describe IDN policy development and IDN ccTLD allocation developments under ICANN's IDN Area: http://icann.org/en/topics/idn. At the Paris meeting, the Board approved both of the processes described below for implementation. In relation to the IDN ccTLD "fast track" process it was resolved that the Board directs staff to: "(1) post the IDNC WG final report for public comments; (2) commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit a detailed implementation report including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008." Fast-track IDN ccTLD Activities http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/ On a related note, the ICANN Board also adopted "the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15jul08-en.htm And further that the Board directs staff to continue to further develop and complete its detailed implementation plan, continue communication with the community on such work, and provide the Board with a final version of the implementation proposals for the board and community to approve before the new gTLD introduction process is launched." New gTLD Program http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
by Tim Ruiz 20 Aug '08

20 Aug '08

An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an intregal part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under that? My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding good WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel funding for ICANN meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules around that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also Councilors, not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or whatever. And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> No one has said Councilors are more important. It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people" per se, but specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development process. If you want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly have that conversation. But we should be clear what we are doing - right now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up. Robin On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more important as Councilors than other GNSO members. If someone is devoting considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether they are on the Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their travel needs if possible. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM To: Greg Ruth Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 I agree with Greg. What began as a process to ensure councilors could participate at council meetings has turned into something else entirely. Robin On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote: Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding should be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to support WG chairs. I believe the original intent was not to progress WG efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders (constituencies) have an *equal* opportunity to participate. (I would think that a responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to participate *before* accepting the position.) Therefore, I am in favor of dividing the funding more or less equally among the consituencies and letting each decide how it can best support representation at ICANN meetings. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org

4 6