September 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

2008 ICANN Nominating Committee selections
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Sep '08

12 Sep '08

Dear Council Members, The 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee has completed its selections and Terry Davis from North America has been selected to the GNSO Council. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-05sep08-en.htm The new term begins at the conclusion of the Cairo ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2008 and ends at the conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2010. Terry Davis biography can be found at: http://nomcom.icann.org/candidate-bios-2008.htm#davis Terry has been invited, as an observer, to join the GNSO Council teleconferences, the GNSO Council and constituency meetings in Cairo, and has been subscribed to the GNSO Council mailing list as an observer. 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 Resolutions passed on 4 September 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the voting results of the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP). Absentee voting was allowed on the motion, one request was processed and one request was received too late for processing. Kind regards, Glen ......................................................................................... Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) Moved: Avri Doria Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: On 20 November 2007, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy; and this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 April 2008; http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf and the GNSO Council, in its deliberations regarding the Final Report, resolved to launch a drafting group to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed; and the drafting group reached consensus on new texts for two of the denial reasons (8 and 9), while reaching agreement that the two other denial reasons (5 and 7) required a more in-depth review than mere clarifications of the originally intended meaning, and that such a review could preferably be undertaken as part of the scope of the foreseen IRTP PDP Resolved: 1. That Denial reason #8 in which the current test reads: A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period Be amended to read: The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name. 2. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads: 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). Be amended to read: 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. 3. That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads: No payment for previous registration period (including credit-card chargebacks) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer. Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP. 4 That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP. 15 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Tony Harris, Robin Gross, Jon Bing, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, (one vote each) Tim Ruiz, Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes (two votes each) Greg Ruth (one vote - absentee vote by request) 1 vote against: Ute Decker (one vote) 2 Abstentions: Kristina Rosette: (one vote) reason: has not had an opportunity to discuss fully with the IPC constituency Cyril Chua (one vote) connectivity issue, dropped off line. The motion passed. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REVISED: Public Comment open till 29 September : Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A 'New IRTP Issues'
by Glen de Saint Géry 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '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-08sep08-en.htm Public Comment: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A 'New IRTP Issues' Background 9 September 2008 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, a Policy Development Process (PDP) is currently ongoing on new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues. These new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues include questions relating to registrar exchange of registrant e-mail information, the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication and potential provisions for "partial bulk transfers." Input requested The Working Group that was launched following the adoption of its charter by the GNSO Council on 17 July 2008 is requesting your input for its deliberations to answer the following questions (found in Section 1.3 of the issues report): Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? Currently there is no way of automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down and/or complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant can overrule the Admin Contact . If you believe policy change is needed, what options could be explored for registrars to make Registrant E-mail address data available? For each option, please identify how this would benefit automating approval, and, if any, what potential problems might be associated with this option. Please identify examples or best practices of email address use to facilitate and/or automate approval from a Registrant for a transfer. Although it is not the purpose of this Policy Development Process (PDP) to recommend changes to WHOIS policy, it conceivably could be an option to require registrant email addresses in WHOIS. The Working Group is interested in your views on that potential option, without regard to the broader WHOIS issues of availability and accuracy of WHOIS data. The Working Group is more particularly interested in your views about any other options not involving WHOIS. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication (e.g., security token in the Form of Authorization (FOA)) due to security concerns on use of email addresses (potential for hacking or spoofing) . What security concerns can you identify related to current ways of authenticating registrants. Note, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) has identified a risk of email spoofing for purposes of domain name hijacking, see link. We are interested in your views on this and any other concerns. Do you think there is a need for other options for electronic authentication? Please state the reasons for your answer. Do you know of any Registrars using additional means for electronic authorization (e.g. security token, digital signatures, etc.)? If so, what are they and who offers them? If a need would be identified for other options of electronic authentication, what other options could be explored? Of those other options to be explored, please identify the potential benefits but also any potential problems. Do you have or know of any data in relation to the impact of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) deployment on security in relation to authentication? If so, please describe the source and type of data. Do you know of any further examples, apart from those mentioned in the issues report (.uk registry and .se registry), of electronic authentication methods? If so, what are they and who offers them? Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars - that is, transfers involving a number of names but not the entire group of names held by the losing registrar . Should the policy incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars? Please state the reasons and use-cases for your answer. Are you aware of any voluntary provisions to facilitate partial bulk transfers? If so, could you please provide further details on those provisions (apart from those already identified in the issues paper - NeuLevel (.biz), Nominet (.uk)). Background documents / links GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; "New IRTP Issues" (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/transfer-issues-report-set-a-23may08…) Charter Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A PDP Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-working-group-charter-jun08.htm) IRTP Part A PDP Working Group Workspace (irtp part a pdp wg pdp jun08) IRTP Part A PDP Working Group E-mail archives (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08/) Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to <new-irtp-issues(a)icann.org> until 29 September 2008. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#new-irtp. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-irtp-issues/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment open till 29 September : Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A 'New IRTP Issues'
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '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-09sep08-en.htm Public Comment: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A 'New IRTP Issues' Background 9 September 2008 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, a Policy Development Process (PDP) is currently ongoing on new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues. These new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues include questions relating to registrar exchange of registrant e-mail information, the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication and potential provisions for "partial bulk transfers." Input requested The Working Group that was launched following the adoption of its charter by the GNSO Council on 17 July 2008 is requesting your input for its deliberations to answer the following questions (found in Section 1.3 of the issues report): Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? Currently there is no way of automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down and/or complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant can overrule the Admin Contact . If you believe policy change is needed, what options could be explored for registrars to make Registrant E-mail address data available? For each option, please identify how this would benefit automating approval, and, if any, what potential problems might be associated with this option. Please identify examples or best practices of email address use to facilitate and/or automate approval from a Registrant for a transfer. Although it is not the purpose of this Policy Development Process (PDP) to recommend changes to WHOIS policy, it conceivably could be an option to require registrant email addresses in WHOIS. The Working Group is interested in your views on that potential option, without regard to the broader WHOIS issues of availability and accuracy of WHOIS data. The Working Group is more particularly interested in your views about any other options not involving WHOIS. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication (e.g., security token in the Form of Authorization (FOA)) due to security concerns on use of email addresses (potential for hacking or spoofing) . What security concerns can you identify related to current ways of authenticating registrants. Note, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) has identified a risk of email spoofing for purposes of domain name hijacking, see link. We are interested in your views on this and any other concerns. Do you think there is a need for other options for electronic authentication? Please state the reasons for your answer. Do you know of any Registrars using additional means for electronic authorization (e.g. security token, digital signatures, etc.)? If so, what are they and who offers them? If a need would be identified for other options of electronic authentication, what other options could be explored? Of those other options to be explored, please identify the potential benefits but also any potential problems. Do you have or know of any data in relation to the impact of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) deployment on security in relation to authentication? If so, please describe the source and type of data. Do you know of any further examples, apart from those mentioned in the issues report (.uk registry and .se registry), of electronic authentication methods? If so, what are they and who offers them? Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars - that is, transfers involving a number of names but not the entire group of names held by the losing registrar . Should the policy incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars? Please state the reasons and use-cases for your answer. Are you aware of any voluntary provisions to facilitate partial bulk transfers? If so, could you please provide further details on those provisions (apart from those already identified in the issues paper - NeuLevel (.biz), Nominet (.uk)). Background documents / links GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; "New IRTP Issues" (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/transfer-issues-report-set-a-23may08…) Charter Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A PDP Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-working-group-charter-jun08.htm) IRTP Part A PDP Working Group Workspace (irtp part a pdp wg pdp jun08) IRTP Part A PDP Working Group E-mail archives (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08/) Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to <new-irtp-issues(a)icann.org> until 29 September 2008. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at <new-irtp-issues(a)icann.org>. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-irtp-issues/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Nom Com selection to GNSO
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 Sep '08

05 Sep '08

Dear Councilors, The 2008 Nom Com selections are now posted at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-05sep08-en.htm. The Nom Com has selected Terry Davis to the GNSO. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Ballot
by Greg Ruth 05 Sep '08

05 Sep '08

* On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions PDP I vote: * [X ] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: red-5

1 0

FW: Upcoming SSAC Presentation on DNS Response Modification
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 Sep '08

05 Sep '08

Forwarded message : Dear all, We will have a briefing session with Dave Piscitello on DNS Response Modification on Wednesday 17th of September from 1300 to 1400 UTC. As always, other stakeholder communities are most welcome to join. Feel free to forward the attached invitations in English, French and Spanish to your constituencies. The SSAC preliminary report no 32 on DNS Response Modification has recently been translated into French and Spanish. It has not yet been linked to the SSAC website but you can find it on the web page for this briefing: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?dns_response_modification You can also find participation instructions and other information related to the presentation on this page. Please get in touch with somebody from the At-Large staff if you have any 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

Trans -SO/AC meeting in Cairo
by Avri Doria 05 Sep '08

05 Sep '08

Hi, One of the topics on yesterday's agenda was a proposal for a joint SO/ AC meeting on various topics in Cairo. Chris Disspain shared the message he was going to send to the ccNSO and I have decided that he says it all and have borrowed it (with permission): Begin forwarded message: > > “At the suggestion of Bertrand de La Chapelle, the Chairs of the > ALAC, gNSO and ccNSO together with GAC representatives Bertrand and > Manal Ismail and Bruce Tonkin on behalf of the Board, had a > teleconference earlier this week. > > The purpose was to explore how the ICANN Cairo meeting schedule > could expand on the progress already made in Paris in terms of > bringing the different SOs and ACs together on the major issues. The > goal would be to develop trans-SO/AC communications and also > facilitate general awareness within the community about the status > of different issues and increase the visibility of them. Trans-SO/AC > communications would not necessarily mean stopping the bilateral > sessions, but may have the effect of making them shorter, more > focused and less repetitive. > > As a result of the call it is suggested that on the Monday in Cairo > the ccNSO, gNSO, ALAC and GAC organise a half day joint session > (open to members as well as councillors) to a) discuss progress, > issues and future steps regarding new gTLDs (including IDNs) and IDN > ccTLDs and b) to be briefed on the President’s Strategy Committee > consultations on improving institutional confidence. It is also > suggested that a further session on the Thursday might be > appropriate to follow up and report on the individual SO/AC > discussions on the topics following the Monday session. > > Obviously, the logistics of all of this have yet to be organised but > ICANN has agreed the principle and we need to confirm, by 12 > September, that we want to do this so that the initial agenda can be > published. I’d appreciate comment, questions and input from > councillors on the suggestion as soon as possible.” > Please use the list to indicate your opinions on this and whether this is something the council should support. thanks a.

4 5

Constituency input sought on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 Sep '08

05 Sep '08

Dear All, Each constituency is invited to provide input to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP. Please use the attached template, which can also be directly viewed on the Wiki, when providing constituency input. https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?template_for_constituency_… The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP workspace is at: https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_pdp_wg_pdp_jun… The deadline for submission of the constituency statements is 3 October 2008. https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_draft_working_… Constituency statements should be submitted to the working group list: <gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08(a)icann.org> NLT COB on 3 October 2008. Marika Konings, Policy Director, is the ICANN staff person supporting the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions & Action Items 4 September 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the motions that were passed by the GNSO Council on Thursday, 4 September 2008. Below the motions is a list of Action Items. Kind regards, Glen ........................................................................................................................ Whois Hypotheses Moved: Chuck Gomes, seconded by Robin Gross Friendly amendment by Mike Rodenbaugh accepted. Whereas: *On 31 October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ ) *Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted *Suggestions for WHOIS studies were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) ICANN staff prepared the report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25 February 2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-report-25… ) On 28 March 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a group of volunteers (Whois Study Group) to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml ) There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted, on 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (Whois Hypotheses WG) to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and by the GAC and prepare a concise list of hypotheses to be tested, derived from the study recommendations and suggested benefits and to deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council () The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26 August 2008 (https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#whois_st…). Resolve: The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the Whois Hypotheses WG Council representatives including liaisons are asked to: 1) forward the report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable; 2) be prepared in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 to have a preliminary discussion; and 3) in the Council meeting on 16 October 2008 to start development of a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies, that demonstrate balance in views and sufficient policy relevance to justify having ICANN staff prepare cost estimates. ICANN Policy Staff are asked to forward the report ASAP directly to the GAC and ALAC for comment before the 16 October Council meeting if possible. Passed unanimously by voice vote ......................................................................................... Motion regarding GNSO Comments re. Geographic Regions Community-Wide WG Moved: Olga Cavalli Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm#_Toc55609368 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 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05223.html 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 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-17jul08.shtml The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-geographic-regions-26aug08.pdf Resolve: The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the following members of the drafting team: Olga Cavalli (NomCom appointee & chair), Clint Crosby (IPC), Glen de Saint Gery (ICANN Staff), Chuck Gomes (RyC), Tony Harris (ISPCPC), Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Staff), Marika Konings (ICANN Staff), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Tim Ruiz (RC), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), and Ken Stubbs (RyC) Council representatives are asked to forward the recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-geographic-regions-26aug08.pdf 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. Passed unanimously by voice vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo Motion: Avri Doria Second: Tony Harris Whereas: On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance, and That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway. Resolved: 1. The names in the following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008: Name Constituency/NCA Reason Class of travel Bing, Jon NCA NCA Economy Cavalli, Olga NCA NCA Economy Doria, Avri NCA Council chair Business Gross, Robin NCUC Constituency 1st choice Economy Harris, Tony ISPC Constituency 1st choice Economy Hoover, Carolyn RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy Jamil,Zahid BC Financial Need Economy Klein, Norbert NCUC Financial Need Economy Rossette, Kristina IPC Financial Need Expenses Only Rodenbaugh, Mike BC Constituency 1st choice Economy Sheppard, Philip BC Complies with ICANN policy Economy Walton, Clarke RrC Constituency 1st choice Economy 2. That the level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GNSO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive on time for meetings on 1 November 2008. 3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thursday of ICANN week as members of the Nomcom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds. The GNSO Secretariat is authorized to cover those expenses from the old DNSO/GNO budget. 8 votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Robin Gross, Avri Doria (one vote each) 6 votes against: Tim Ruiz, Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes (two votes each) 1 Abstention: Jon Bing (one vote) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Publish motion on Council list with invitation to absent Councilors to request a ballot 2. Councilors should forward WHOIS Hypotheses Study Group report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable in preparation for preliminary discussion in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c… 3. ICANN Policy Staff are asked to forward the WHOIS Hypotheses Study Group report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c… ASAP directly to the GAC and ALAC for comment before the 16 October Council meeting if possible. 4. Council representatives are asked to forward the recommendations of the ICANN Geographic Regions report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-geographic-regions-26aug08.pdf 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. 5. Schedule a meeting of the GNSO Planning team for the week 8 - 12 September 2008. 6. Avri Doria to contact the Registrar Constituency Chair about registrar participation in the GNSO Planning team. 7. Tim Ruiz volunteered to be the registrar representative until the constituency had decided on a participant. 8. Inform the meeting manager of the GNSO members to receive ICANN travel support for the Cairo meeting. 9. Comments are invited on the ALAC Review which comment period closes on 12 September 2008. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#alac-rev-jul08 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0