August 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
by Mike Rodenbaugh 07 Aug '08

07 Aug '08

Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking up on a suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 'relevant' as Robin and I had suggested: There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant language, except that in countries where relevant languages are rendered in more than one script, there may be one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. "Relevant" languages are defined as Official languages, or in nations where there are no Official languages, languages used by more than ten percent (10%) of the nation's population. I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start the discussion to get this more narrowly tailored. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report Hi all, I have a question on this new reco of the WG: There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN strings in every script of every language used by a significant number of people in the US? If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of users', then how? Is it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to consider the specific Indian concern, but not allow such a broad swath of IDN ccTLDs for every country? Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report hi, Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this meeting - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 Aug deadline. As there has not been any discussion on the list about this response yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item. On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote: > > Then finally we also added a paragraph to revise one of the points > in our > previous statement in response to strong objection by the Indian > delegate > during our meeting with the GAC in Paris. The paragraph was > specifically > tagged for council review because it is a revision of a statement we > had put > out earlier and the particular point was discussed at length. > > Anyway, for your quick reference, the suggested revised statement is > as > follows: > >> There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per >> relevant >> script per relevant language. > I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions taken over the last months. Thanks. a.

2 1

Finalizing the IRTP PDP on Clarification of Reasons for Denial
by Olof Nordling 07 Aug '08

07 Aug '08

Dear Councilors, As agreed on today's Council call, please bring the outcome from the drafting group regarding the IRTP PDP on Clarification of Reasons for Denial to your Constituencies' attention for any position preparations needed. The topic will be addressed at the next Council call, 4 September, with a view to finalize the PDP with a vote on a Council recommendation regarding new text proposals for Denial Reasons #8 and #9. For details, see below or see the final draft from the drafting group at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-final-draft-denial-reasons-04ju… Thanks Olof ---------------------------------------- Denial reason #8 Current text * A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period Proposed text * 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 Current text * 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). Proposed text * 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, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.

1 0

USG Correspondence to ICANN
by Philip Sheppard 06 Aug '08

06 Aug '08

It seems this link has changed since this morning. You can find the document here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/msg00061.html _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:09 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] USG Correspondence to ICANN This is relevant to the RAA and the WHOIS studies. Philip http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/pdfkQ29f5rBed.pdf

1 0

USG Correspondence to ICANN
by Philip Sheppard 06 Aug '08

06 Aug '08

This is relevant to the RAA and the WHOIS studies. Philip http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/pdfkQ29f5rBed.pdf

1 0

GNSO Council Restructuring
by Denise Michel 04 Aug '08

04 Aug '08

At its 31 July 2008 meeting, the ICANN Board accepted the report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring. The Board was highly appreciative of the Working Group's efforts and instructed ICANN Staff to (1) perform an analysis of the potential consequences and implementation issues presented by the proposals in the report and (2) report back to the Board by 21 August 2008 with an analysis of the potential consequences, an implementation review, and recommendations regarding those issues. In an effort to provide a comprehensive analysis for the Board, Staff would welcome input from the GNSO Council, its constituencies and individual members of the GNSO community, as well as from the Governmental Advisory Committee and the At-Large Advisory Committee and their members, regarding the proposals set forth in the Working Group's report. A number of areas in particular have been noted in the Board's considerations and are being addressed by Staff, including: • Implications regarding the selection of Board seats; • Implications of new voting thresholds for policy development and other Council operating matters and how they compare with current voting thresholds; • Consideration of implications regarding the future roles of Nominating Committee appointees, which may create pivot points because of the "simple majorities" in the proposed new thresholds; • Consideration of the potential effects of various stakeholder representation options proposed by the working group; • Evaluation of whether the proposed Council structure will be understandable to the outside community and open enough to encourage formation and participation of new constituency groups; and • Consideration of transition issues and how transition could occur in an orderly and predictable manner. Staff welcomes input on these and other issues related to the Working Group's report. It would be helpful to receive any input you may have by COB (PDT) on Thursday, 14 August 2008 via email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. Regards, Denise -------------- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org

2 1

GNSO Council Restructuring WG July08 public archives
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Aug '08

04 Aug '08

Dear All, The Board asked the GNSO to convene a small working group on Council restructuring and said that the group "should reach consensus and submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring by no later than 25 July 2008 for consideration by the ICANN Board as soon as possible." (see ICANN Board Resolution 2008.06.26.13, <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182> ) The archives of this working group, which includes the consensus recommendation, have been published on page: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/ under Task Forces Mailing List Archives GNSO Council Restructuring WG July08 http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-consensus-wg/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
by Edmon Chung 04 Aug '08

04 Aug '08

Hi Everyone, As discussed in our last council call, a drafting team convened to redraft a set of comments in response to the IDNC WG Final Report. Please find attached the draft. In summary, the document is separated in to 3 main parts: Part 1: Acknowledgement of good points in the IDNC report with some suggestions for further improvement 1. The use of international standard to define official language and meaningfulness of string 2. The conducting of an RFI (Request for Information) 3. Fast Track being an ongoing mechanism 4. Waiting for IDNAbis review to be completed before implementation Part 2: Issues of significant concern A. Non-contentiousness only within territory B. Lack of process for determining non-contentiousness C. Lack of mechanism to enforce compliance Part 3: Reiterating some points from the GNSO Response to the GAC issues paper - IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs should be introduced asap - IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs should go together - Confusingly similar strings should be avoided - Considerations against spoofing Then finally we also added a paragraph to revise one of the points in our previous statement in response to strong objection by the Indian delegate during our meeting with the GAC in Paris. The paragraph was specifically tagged for council review because it is a revision of a statement we had put out earlier and the particular point was discussed at length. Anyway, for your quick reference, the suggested revised statement is as follows: There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. Finally, the comment period currently open at ICANN is scheduled to close on Aug 15. The plan is to have the document agreed to in our meeting next week: Aug 7 to allow us to submit the comments in time. Suggestions, edits, comments welcome. Discussion on the list before our meeting next week should be useful. Edmon

2 1