September 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Input Requested on Council Restructuring
by Denise Michel Sept. 23, 2008

Sept. 23, 2008

Dear GNSO Community Leaders: As I reported during yesterday's GNSO Council teleconference meeting and previously via email, the ICANN Board made significant progress discussing various aspects of the GNSO Council restructuring at its 28 August meeting. During the meeting, Board members discussed a number of consensus recommendations developed by the special working group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR). The Board endorsed the direction of the WG-GCR Report and approved a bicameral voting structure that includes contracted and non-contracted party houses each composed of voting stakeholder representatives and independent nominating committee appointees (see < http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>). The Board directed that a transition to this new structure be accomplished by January 2009. Several Council restructuring issues remained unresolved. The Board is continuing its discussions and intends to address these issues at its next meeting on 30 September. There are five major issue areas yet to be decided: (1) the role of an independent third Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) that the Board has decided will serve on the Council; (2) the process for electing Council leadership (Chair and Vice Chairs); (3) the process for filling Board seats #13 and #14; (4) the voting thresholds for various Council decisions as proposed by the WG-GCR; and (5) general implementation issues. (It is important to keep in mind that the Board is actively considering Council restructuring and additional ideas and issues could emerge.) *To assist Board members in their deliberations, Staff will be preparing an analysis and recommendation for each of these remaining decision points. I would like to include additional community input in that process and invite all GNSO constituencies, other ICANN structures, and the nominating committee appointees to share their views as appropriate. For each of the four WG-GCR recommendations outlined below I am requesting each group to submit a one-paragraph statement clarifying its perspective on that topic. I also hope that each group will take the opportunity to highlight in one paragraph what they believe to be the most significant implementation issues that will need to be addressed (Issue 5). Note: your comments will not be edited or summarized, but will be collated and submitted directly to Board members for their consideration. A copy of this submission will be posted on the public GNSO email list. Any group intending to contribute comments should submit them to me via email to policy-staff(a)icann.org by COB on 18 September (PDT). * That will give Board members adequate time before their meeting to review your submissions. A copy of the Final Report of the WG-GCR is attached for your reference. The remaining issues also are summarized below, but please reference the report directly for the precise WG-GCR language. Issue 1 – Role of the Third NCA: At it 28 August meeting the Board directed that each voting house include one voting Nominating Committee appointee (NCA). The Board also directed that a third "independent" NCA continue to serve on the Council – a matter on which the WG-GCR could not reach consensus. The Board has not yet determined what the role, function or status of that third NCA will be on the Council. Ideas currently under discussion include: making this NCA non-voting and not assigned to either house (recommended by Staff); making the third NCA voting (unclear yet how this would fit into the bicameral voting structure); including the third NCA as a voting member of the non-contracted party house to maintain a 6:1 ratio of constituency representatives to NCAs; Issue 2 – Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair The WG-GCR proposed that the GNSO Council Chair be elected by a 60% vote of BOTH voting houses and that each house elect its own Vice Chair to serve in that capacity. A WG-GCR non-consensus compromise suggested that if that process could elect no Chair, then a third Council-level Nominating Committee Appointee should serve as a non-voting Chair. The Board generally discussed the leadership selection options at it 28 August meeting, but did not reach a decision. Ideas currently under discussion include: adopting the WG-GCR proposal (recommended by Staff); adopting the WG-GCR proposal as well as the proposal to use the third NCA as a non-voting Chair if needed; and have the Chair elected by a simple majority of the full Council with weighted voting (12 votes each for the contracted and non-contracted party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs). Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats The WG-GCR proposed that, at the end of the current terms for Board seats #13 and #14, the contracted party voting house elect Seat 13 by a 60% vote and that the user/non-contracted party voting house elect Seat 14 by a 60% vote. The WG-GCR agreed that the two seats cannot BOTH be held by individuals who are employed by, serve as an agent of, or receive any compensation from an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, nor can they both be held by individuals who are the appointed representatives to one of the GNSO user stakeholder groups. Staff is exploring concerns that changes in the Board election methodology for Seats 13 and 14 as proposed by the WG-GCR would have the effect of creating Board members from each of the voting houses, rather than Board members from the entire GNSO. (All Board seats are to serve the interests of ICANN's public benefit mandate, not the interests of individual groups; the SO level represents a view of an entire sector of the ICANN community and there is concern that to more narrowly define the parameters of selection within an SO is inconsistent with the non-representational capacity of the members once they reach the board of directors). The Board did not have time to thoroughly address this matter at its 28 August session. Ideas currently under discussion include: adopting the WG-GCR proposal; deferring this issue and dealing with it as part of the Board Review (which is ongoing); adopting a Council-wide supermajority selection criteria; adopting a method which uses a simple majority of the full Council with weighted voting (12 votes each for the contracted and non-contracted party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs). Issue 4 – Voting Thresholds: 1. "The WG-GCR reached consensus on the following collection of voting thresholds: "Create an Issues Report (currently 25% of vote of Council)– either greater than 25% vote of both houses or simple majority of one house 2. Initiate a PDP within Scope of the GNSO per ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC (currently >33% of vote of Council) -- greater than 33% vote of both houses or greater than 66% vote of one house 3. Initiate a PDP not within Scope of the GNSO per ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC (currently >66% of vote of Council) – greater than 75% vote of one house and a simple majority of the other 4. Approval of a PDP without Super-Majority (currently >50% of vote of Council) -- Simple majority of both houses, but requires that at least one representative of at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups supports 5. Super-Majority Approval of a PDP (currently >66% of vote of Council) – Greater than 75% majority in one house and simple majority in the other 6. Removal of Nominating Committee Appointees for Cause subject to ICANN Board Approval (currently 75% of Council): a) At least 75% of User/NCP House to remove Nominating Committee appointee on User/NCP House; b) At least 75% of Contracted Parties House to remove Nominating Committee appointee on Contracted Parties House; c) [At least 75% of both voting houses to remove the Council-level Nominating Committee appointee]. 7. All other GNSO Business (other than Board elections) – simple majority of both voting houses." The Board did not have time at its 28 August meeting to discuss these voting thresholds. Staff has recommended adoption of all voting thresholds noted in the WGGCR Report, except for Category F, the threshold for removal of an NCA. Staff has recommended that the Board consider this threshold further as it continues its related work on the NomCom Review and improvement efforts. Additional ideas under consideration include adding a voting threshold for the approval of a charter for a PDP working group. Issue 5 – Implementation At its 28 August meeting, the Board directed the GNSO Council to work with ICANN Staff on an implementation plan that creates a transition to a new bicameral voting structure by the beginning of calendar year 2009. Board discussion continues on how to ensure diversity in each stakeholder group, whether specific Board recommendations are needed to support expansion and inclusiveness for new actors, and whether the Board should encourage fostering different representation. Questions about whether additional guidance or requirements are needed on the implementation plan, and transition to the new structure by January 2009, also are being explored. Comments about this time frame, the issues noted, or about particular areas that might require special attention are most welcome. Thank you for your continued involvement and input. Regards, Denise -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy policy-staff(a)icann.org

3 10

FW: Invitation to IANA presentation next Monday
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2008

Sept. 23, 2008

Forwarded From: Matthias Langenegger ALAC Dear all, We will have an introductory briefing on IANA with Kim Davies this coming Monday, 29th of September from 1300 to 1400 UTC with simultaneous interpretation into French and Spanish. Other stakeholder communities are of course welcome to join. Feel free to forward the attached invitations in English, French and Spanish to your constituencies. >From our invitation: "This will be a basic introduction to IANA and the functions which IANA is responsible for, such as the delegation and re-delegation processes for country code and other top level domains. Other topics will include an overview of some of the current and future work of IANA such as the internationalization of the DNS root zone. Kim will also be able to outline IANA's relationship with the US Department of Commerce." Please see: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?iana_introduction for complete details. Recordings of the briefing in English, Spanish, and French will be available after the meeting for those unable to attend the briefing. Please contact somebody from the At-Large Staff if you have additional questions. Regards, -- Matthias Langenegger At-Large Coordination Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger

1 0

Draft GNSO Council Agenda 25 September 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 19, 2008

Sept. 19, 2008

Dear Councilors, Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 25 September 2008 This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time12:00 UTC - see below for local times (05:00 Los Angeles, 08:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne) Chuck Gomes will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins. Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members. Item 0: Roll call of Council members Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Review/amend agenda Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of 4 September 2008 (Items 0-3 10 mins ) Item 4: Status Update (15 mins) 4.1 ICANN Board 4.2 Fast Flux PDP WG 4.3 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A PDP 4.4 New gTLDs 4.5 Fast Track 4.6 AGP 4.7 RAA Amendments Item 5: Discussion on GNSO Response concerning Geo Regions (15 mins) ICANN Geographic Regions -- Constituency feedback -- Next Steps Item 6: Discussion/Decision GNSO Restructuring and Plan (25 mins) -- Overview of Plan https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?gnso_improvements Item 7: ICANN subsidization of GNSO travel expenses (10 mins). - longer term procedure --Next Steps Item 8: Planning for Cairo (15 mins) 8.1 Proposal for Trans-Silo Joint meeting (ccNSO, GNSO, GAC, ALAC) on Monday 3 November 2008 8.2 Thursday 6 November 2008 Proposed Topics: * Issues at the cross-section of implementation of New gTLD (LDH & IDN), and Fast Track IDNccTLDs * ICANN Transition and the PSC 8.3 Other Item 9: Whois Hypotheses Study Group (10 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c… -- Constituency feedback -- Next Steps Item 10: Motion on request for issues report on Registration Abuse Policies. (10 mins) Motion: Mike Rodenbaugh Second: Greg Ruth 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 : 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. 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. Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) (05:00 Los Angeles, 08:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 12:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-7+1DST 05:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 13:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Oslo, Norway (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+1DST 18:00 Phnom Penh, Cambodia UTC+7+0DST 19:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 22:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2008, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 3

Geographic Regions Motion
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 18, 2008

Sept. 18, 2008

In anticipation of possible action by the Council in our 25 Sep meeting, I drafted a motion for approval of the proposed GNSO comments regarding geographic regions. It is attached and copied below. Chuck Whereas: * In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting "that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions" * In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO "provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate" * In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions * The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008 * In the 4 September Council meeting Council representatives were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 * The Council reviewed and modified the proposed GNSO comments in its meeting on 25 September 2008 Resolve: * The GNSO Council approves the proposed GNSO comments as amended. * The Council Chair is asked to submit the GNSO comments to the Board.

1 0

Consolidated Overview of Public Comments on the Final Report of the IDNC Working Group Available for Review
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 17, 2008

Sept. 17, 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/en/announcements/announcement-17sep08-en.htm Consolidated Overview of Public Comments on the Final Report of the IDNC Working Group Available for Review 17 September 2008 As part of its commitment to keep the community full informed on public policy matters of significant interest, the ICANN staff has prepared and posted a consolidated overview of public comments submitted on the Final Report of the IDNC Working Group on ccTLD Fast Track Mechanisms. That report, "Consolidated overview, Public comments on Final Report IDNC WG" can be found at either of the following links: In the Public Comment forum at http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-cctld-fast-track/msg00032.html Or directly at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/idnc-wg-final-report-comments-12sep0… Background: The IDNC WG was charted by ICANN's Board to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes (both the official code list of ISO 3166-1 and the list of reserved ISO 3166-1 code elements) (popularly known as "the fast track"), while the overall IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. The IDNC WG submitted its final report to the Board on 26 June 2008. Comments on the report were received through 15 August 2008. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Liaisons
by Avri Doria Sept. 17, 2008

Sept. 17, 2008

Hi, We have already discussed this in a previous meeting and approved the idea. I had conveyed this original interest to Chris, and we discussed it during our joint meeting in Paris. I suggest that we confirm this at the meeting on 25 Sept at which time I will send a formal response and then we can pick the person to act in this role for the GNSO. I will draft a proposed response email in the next day or so. thanks a. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Chris Disspain" <ceo(a)auda.org.au> > Date: 17 September 2008 15:49:02 CEDT > To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)psg.com> > Subject: Liaisons > > Avri, > > Over the past few months both the ccNSO and GNSO Council agreed that > a structural exchange of information is helpful to coordinate our > activities. To this end we have already agreed to organise regular > meetings between the Councils. As a next step in this process we > propose to formally exchange observers. > > According to ICANN Bylaws both the ccNSO and GNSO Council may agree > with the Council of another ICANN Supporting Organization to > exchange observers. Both the GNSO observer to the ccNSO Council and > the ccNSO Observer to the GNSO Council shall not be considered a > member of or entitled to vote on the Council, but otherwise shall be > entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the Councils. > > If the GNSO Council agrees with the exchange, we will start our > internal process to appoint an observer, who will be designated to > the GNSO Council. Once that person is appointed we will, in > accordance with ICANN bylaws, inform you and the ICANN secretary of > the designation. > > Cheers, > > Chris Disspain > CEO - auDA > Australia's Domain Name Administrator > ceo(a)auda.org.au > www.auda.org.au > > Important Notice - This email may contain information which is > confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for > the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this > email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the > sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the > environment before printing this email. > >

1 0

RFP for Independent Review of SSAC Posted
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 16, 2008

Sept. 16, 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/en/announcements/announcement-16sep08-en.ht RFP for Independent Review of SSAC Posted 16 September 2008 As part of its commitment to ongoing improvement through its program of reviews, ICANN is today posting a Request for Proposal (RFP) [PDF, 149K] for an independent reviewer of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. The RFP contains the Terms of Reference for the review. ICANN welcomes responses from any qualified party. Applications close at 23:59 UTC on Friday 3 October 2008. Details of the application process are contained in the RFP document. For further information about ICANN reviews, see the Reviews page. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Interest Sought in Receiving Names from De-Accredited Registrar
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 16, 2008

Sept. 16, 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/en/announcements/announcement-12sep08-en.htm Interest Sought in Receiving Names from De-Accredited Registrar 12 September 2008 As the result of the de-accreditation of Esoftwiz Inc. (IANA ID 614), ICANN is seeking Statements of Interest from ICANN-accredited registrars that are interested in assuming sponsorship of the gTLD names that had been managed by Esoftwiz Inc. Esoftwiz Inc. managed approximately 1,200 gTLD registrations, including registrations in the com and net registries, and is based in Ontario, Canada. ICANN has secured all available Whois data for the current registrations. There are approximately 8 second-level internationalized domain names under this registrar's sponsorship in the com and net zones. Request for Statements of Interest ICANN-accredited registrars who wish to be considered as a potential recipient of a bulk transfer of the names should be in good standing with regard to all ICANN-obligations and submit a written statement of interest by no later than 23:00 UTC on Friday, 19 September 2008, with a description of qualification, which includes at least: Registrar experience, including number of registrations and customers managed; Availability of sufficient customer service staffing to timely respond to customer service requests during and shortly after the bulk transfer; Ability to communicate with customers in languages other than English; A list of the gTLDs in which accredited and operational; Experience with and knowledge of bulk-transfer procedures; Documentation of procedures to resolve potential disputes of domain name control or registration rights (in the event of contested ownership or inaccurate Whois data); Experience as a customer-facing / "retail" registrar business; Experience with second-level IDNs in the com and net zones; Ability to provide ICANN with regular status reports. Expressions of interest should indicate, approximately, the amount of time needed by the applicant-registrar to prepare to receive the bulk transfer. This request for information/expressions of interest is made pursuant to the Draft/Interim Terminated Registrar Transition Procedure posted at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-06jun08-en.htm. ICANN reserves the right to entertain any or none of the statements of interest submitted in response to this request and to select or approve a bulk-transfer recipient outside this process. To the extent confidential treatment of any information in the submission is required, such information should be designated accordingly. Questions and submissions should be submitted by email to mike.zupke @ icann.org. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment Period Open for Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 15, 2008

Sept. 15, 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] Public Comment Period Now Open for Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP Public Comments open until 6 October 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15sep08-en.htm 15 September 2008 The GNSO Council approved on 4 September 2008 a motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Public Development Process (PDP). The motion, which is pending for Board action, proposes new texts for two of the nine denial reasons (#8 and #9) while recommending that work on denial reasons #5 and #7 be suspended until such time as a Policy Development Process is initiated on PDP C on IRTP operational rule enhancement as outlined in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues PDP Recommendations of 19 March 2008. The public is invited to submit comments until 6 October 2008 before final consideration by the Board. Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to <irtp-denials(a)icann.org> until 6 October 2008. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200810.html#irtp-deni…. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-denials/. Background The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. As part of a broader review of this policy, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP to examine four specific issues from the broader list that addressed reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. The IRTP currently enumerates nine (9) specific reasons why a registrar can deny a transfer. Those issues identified as needing clarification included the following: "No payment for previous registration period" (Denial Reason #5); "A domain was already in "lock" status" (Denial Reason #7); The domain was in the first 60 days of an initial registration period (Denial Reason #8); and A domain name is within 60 days of being transferred (Denial Reason #9) ICANN Staff finalized and posted an Initial Report for public comment as part of this PDP and used public comments received to compile a Final Report for the Council's consideration on further steps to take. At the GNSO Council meeting on 17 April 2008, a drafting group was launched to develop suggested text modifications for the four transfer denial reasons. The drafting group addressing this first set of transfer denial reasons reported on its findings to the GNSO Council. The Council resolved on 25 June 2008 to post the proposals for transfer denial reasons #8 and #9 for public comments, while deferring denial reasons #5 and #7 to be handled in a future transfer policy development process (PDP C). The proposals of the GNSO drafting group addressing transfer denial reasons #8 and #9 were posted for public comments on 26 June 2008. One comment was received and sent to the GNSO Council for consideration. On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted the motion on the IRTP Denial Definitions PDP. Background documents Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Public Development Process: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200809 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues PDP Recommendations: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19ma… Initial Report: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf Drafting group outcome: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-final-draft-denial-reasons-04ju… Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council re-structuring and stakeholder group transition
by Denise Michel Sept. 12, 2008

Sept. 12, 2008

Dear GNSO community leaders, Advisory Committee leaders, and interested parties: As you are aware, the ICANN Board has directed the GNSO Council to work with ICANN Staff on an implementation plan, for subsequent Board approval, that creates a transition to a new bicameral voting structure by the beginning of calendar year 2009 see < http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>). Given the amount of work that must be accomplished between now and the end of the year, we want to provide the GNSO community (and those interested in joining) with the information and assistance needed to accomplish this transition, and we want to work openly and cooperatively to address all necessary implementation issues. Key deliverables include 1) Stakeholder Group transition plans (including plans for seating new Council members), and 2) Existing constituencies' request for confirmation by the Board (applications for the creation of new constituencies also are encouraged). The GNSO Implementation Planning Team met yesterday to discuss the timetable for complying with the Board's directives. ICANN Staff also has been working to identify the most efficient path to completing the transition work in the time allotted. *At this stage, it appears that we should target 2 December 2008 as the date by which the four Council stakeholder groups present their transition plans to the Board*. This will provide the Board with an opportunity to review and act on the plans by the end of the year. The attached document compiled by Staff summarizes the critical stakeholder group principles found in the the BGC-WG's GNSO Improvements Report adopted by the Board (see <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/>). These should help guide your work. Please let me know if additional Staff assistance is needed to support your efforts, including identifying entities interested in participating in the development of stakeholder groups. As we move forward it would be helpful to have, for coordination purposes, the names of individuals directly involved in developing stakeholder group plans. Please email names and contact information to policy-staff(a)icann.org . Some constituency representatives have expressed concerns about the need to act quickly because they have incumbent GNSO Council members whose terms expire during the Cairo ICANN meeting. We are open to discussing how the timing of the January deadline may affect constituencies' nomination and election processes. It has been suggested that constituencies should have the option to extend the terms of their existing representatives, if needed, until January 2009. Staff is exploring the feasibility of such an extension and will provide additional information within the next few days. The BGC-WG's Report adopted by the Board acknowledged that, as the GNSO evolves, its constituencies should have flexibility in managing themselves provided they adhere to certain fundamental principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness. The Board requested that existing constituencies confirm their status during the transition period taking this opportunity to demonstrate compliance with those principles. The Board also adopted another provision during its deliberations and will be asking constituencies to formally confirm their status every 3 years to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of Article X, Section 5, subsection 3 of the ICANN Bylaws. This will be an opportunity for existing constituencies to demonstrate compliance with the principles set forth in the ICANN Bylaws and addressed by the BGC-WG. The Board also encouraged new constituencies to submit requests for certification, especially during this transition period. Again, Staff stands ready to assist with constituency "confirmation" and new constituency creation. I understand the GNSO Implementation Planning Team will be finalizing its proposed structure for the wider (and more long-term) GNSO Improvements effort and hopes to seek Council approval of a top-level structure in October. Those two efforts are likely to remain on separate tracks, but so many of the GNSO Improvements are interrelated that we envision considerable information sharing and collaboration among teams. We look forward to working with you. Regards, Denise -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy policy-staff(a)icann.org

1 0