January 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Notice of Intent to Form Cybersafety Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth March 3, 2009

March 3, 2009

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Notice of Intent to Form a New GNSO Constituency (NOIF) submitted by Cheryl B. Preston of the CP80.org Foundation proposing to form the new Cybersafety Constituency. Board members have also been sent a copy of the document as an FYI. I will also be sending a copy to the constituencies mailing list as an FYI, and we'll be posting the NOIF on the GNSO Improvements Home Page http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth +1 424.558.4805

3 5

Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
by Patrick Jones Feb. 3, 2009

Feb. 3, 2009

Dear Council, At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process - also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006. Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN. The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN's continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures. A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date. In view of the GNSO Council's critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me. An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place. Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated. Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Support to ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones(a)icann.org

4 6

Board Resolution on individual users
by Denise Michel Feb. 2, 2009

Feb. 2, 2009

Dear Councilors and other interested parties: There has been some community discussion over the past weeks regarding the 11 December Board Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-11dec08.htm>seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways. I would like to try to clarify the context of that resolution and clear up any misperceptions about its intent. This particular Resolution is the latest step on the part of the Board to resolve a fundamental strategic issue for the organization, that is, the appropriate role and representation of individual (commercial and non-commercial) Internet users in ICANN, and specifically within the GNSO. Its intent is to garner a recommendation from the interested community to assist the Board in resolving a recommendation made to the Board by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/restructure-working-group-en.htm>) that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO Council should "…be open to membership of all interested parties … that use or provide services for the Internet, … and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC." Because ongoing independent review proceedings<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/>of other ICANN structures have suggested different representational approaches, I think the Board wanted to ensure ample input and advice was received before resolving the matter. The full context and description of this issue was contained in the November Public Comment Forum<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-users>request for input (see background materials, comments filed, and Staff summary of those contributions). The 11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. In addition to the previous public comments, the Board hoped that the Resolution would spur additional community dialogue and agreement between interested parties. Given that the original WG-GCR recommendation was a consensus position supported by representatives from all the GNSO constituencies as well as GAC, ALAC and Nominating Committee participants, and that the Board decision on this matter could have broad impact, the Board did not mandate any particular methodology regarding the form that dialogue would take and the Resolution was drafted to offer flexibility in that regard. The Resolution also recognizes that this matter has particularly important (and time sensitive) implications for creation of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). In view of various community comments since the Resolution was published, it is important to emphasize that it is not intended to be a referendum on the different approaches that have been advanced by groups working on proposed NCSG charters. Staff has been corresponding with and providing assistance to participants about their efforts to produce draft NCSG charters that will ultimately be submitted to the Board. There appear to remain a few fundamental differences of opinion about the interpretation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group recommendations<http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…>, endorsed by the Board, particularly regarding the continued primacy of the constituency structure outlined in the ICANN By-laws. Proposed charters are not intended to be within the scope of the 11 December Resolution. When community members formally submit to the Board one or more petitions/charters for NCSG formation (and other Stakeholder Group charters), those efforts will be publicly posted for comment by all members of the community and will subsequently be evaluated by the Board. As directed by the Board at its 1 October 2008 meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm>, it is Staff's obligation to work with the community to encourage new participants, facilitate the creation of new constituencies, and support the development of four new Stakeholder Groups. We remain committed to that process and stand ready to assist members of the community. Please contact me and the Policy Staff <policy-staff(a)icann.org> if you need assistance or would like to discuss these matters. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development

6 8

A few comments on RAA amendments
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

Council Members: Some members of the GNSO Council have requested clarification about the procedures available to ICANN to implement an amended Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) absent two-thirds approval by the GNSO. I thought it might be helpful to provide some writing on this even though we are just before the Council meeting. This can also be described during the meeting given that most will not have time to read and consider this before the meeting. In the "GNSO Briefing Paper on Proposed RAA Amendments" provided to the GNSO Council on 29 October 2008 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05617.html) two possible adoption paths were described for amending RAA: 1. The RAA includes a provision for the adoption of changes that can be incorporated in a new contract that can be made mandatory for all registrars upon renewal. Specifically, RAA Subsection 5.4 details the process for RAA renewal and substitution of revised forms of the RAA, and sets forth a path that includes undertaking a consensus process as set forth in RAA Subsection 4.3. (The full text of RAA Subsections 5.4 and 4.3 are reprinted in Appendix I.) This process is similar in several respects to the current GNSO policy development process, encompassing community outreach and public comment, a written report and supporting materials documenting areas of agreement and disagreement and a recommendation adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the Council. It is expected that such a consensus process would consider the set of proposed amendments as a whole. Consideration of changes to the set might require use of the formal GNSO PDP process. 2. An alternative approach would leave the determination for approving the new form of RAA with the Board. However, since the consensus process described above would not be followed under this approach, the new form RAA might not be imposed mandatorily on registrars due to the RAA requirement. In order to gain acceptance under this approach, there might be incentives to encourage voluntary adoption of the new contract. One advantage to this approach would be that adoption could proceed without waiting for a renewal cycle to pass. There might be several potential incentives for registrars to adopt the new form of RAA immediately upon approval by the Board: a. Recognition of those registrars agreeing to the new terms with a ³higher standards² status by ICANN and the community (a ³gold star² approach); b. Fee incentives; c. Heightened accreditation and renewal standards going forward; d. Community and peer support for adopting the new form RAA. Because the GNSO did not approve the proposed amendments to the RAA with a two-thirds majority, the second approach described above now remains as the most viable path forward. Staff is currently evaluating this possibility. That is, the ALAC comments and recommendation and the results of the GNSO vote would be forwarded to the Board. The Board might consider the set of amendments for approval. This approval would not make the amendments mandatory in the RAA at any time and ICANN might offer incentive(s) for Registrars to adopt them. Again, this path is not certain. I hope this is helpful. I am free to discuss this on email or on the phone. Regards, Kurt

4 4

GNSO Council teleconference 29 January 2009 MP3 recording
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 29, 2009

Jan. 29, 2009

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 29 January, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090129.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions 29 January 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 29, 2009

Jan. 29, 2009

Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes please find the resolutions that were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 29 January 2009. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Motion 1 Election of GNSO Council vice chair ==================================== Council approved the election of Chuck Gomes as the GNSO Council vice chair for the period running concurrently with that of the GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2009 until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected. Passed by voice vote. One abstention from Chuck Gomes Motion 2 Motion to approve Operation Steering Committee (OSC) charter ================================================ Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Olga Cavalli Whereas: * The GNSO Council reviewed and accepted the new GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…> PDF, 96K<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?PDF%2C%2096K> developed by the Planning Team at its 16 October meeting. * That Plan called for the creation of an Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to oversee efforts to enhance the GNSO's structure, constituencies, and communications. * The OSC was formed and held six teleconference meetings and conducted various online discussions as of 21 January 2009. * The OSC reviewed and modified the draft OSC Charter prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team and recommended that the Council approve the revised draft Charter dated 22 Dec 08. * The Council discussed the charter in its 8 January 2009 meeting and two Councilors suggested edits. * All OSC members approved the charter with the proposed edits as found at https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?operations_steering_committee_osc. Resolve: * The GNSO Council approves the OSC Charter and directs the OSC to proceed in fulfilling the terms of that Charter. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote Motion 3 Motion to approve Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Charter ================================================================== Motion proposed by Tim Ruiz, seconded by Greg Ruth Whereas: The GNSO Council reviewed and accepted the new GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan developed by the Planning Team at its 16 October meeting. That Plan called for the creation of a Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) to oversee efforts to revise and enhance the GNSO's Policy Development Process. The PPSC was formed and held three teleconference meetings and conducted various online discussions as of 7 January 2009. The PPSC reviewed and modified the draft PPSC Charter prepared by the 'GNSO Improvements Planning Team and recommends that the Council approve the revised draft Charter dated 7 January 2009 and contained at the committee's wiki site at: https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee…. Resolve: The GNSO Council approves the PPSC Charter and directs the PPSC to proceed in fulfilling the terms of that Charter. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote Motion 4 Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO ======================================= Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg Whereas: * On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. * In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. * The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. * The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. * The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. Resolve: * The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board's request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. * If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. * Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above. * The Council directs the Council Chair to: * Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January * Inform the Board that the GNSO: * Is awaiting information from the ALAC. * Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation. * Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS motion from the Whois drafting team for Council consideration
by Liz Gasster Jan. 29, 2009

Jan. 29, 2009

All, Attached and posted on the WHOIS discussion workspace is the draft motion that the WHOIS studies drafting team has prepared for Council consideration. (This is not for action on today's Council call). See: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_references Although not noted in the attached, staff has a concern about Study Group E (studies 3 and 20), which involve RAA provision 3.7.7.3. Staff does not believe the studies can be conducted as described in the attached, and we have drafted alternative language that we think could be the subject of a study of the relevant provision. I can elaborate at the appropriate time, but I wanted to flag our concern as this language is circulating. Thanks, Liz

2 1

RE: [council] Revised MEXICO Travel Support list
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 29, 2009

Jan. 29, 2009

3 2

RE: [council] Revised MEXICO Travel Support list
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 29, 2009

Jan. 29, 2009

1 0

Revised MEXICO Travel Support list
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 29, 2009

Jan. 29, 2009

Dear All, Please find the revised GNSO list of participants chosen by each constituency, to benefit from ICANN Travel support for the meetings in Mexico City. The IPC constituency has added Zybnek Loebl to be supported for his airfare. ICANN staff is in receipt of the list, and the compiled database has been sent to BCD travel who will be contacting you individually to arrange your travel. Nominating Committee Appointees: Avri Doria - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Olga Cavalli - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Terry Davis - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Registrar Constituency: Stéphane van Gelder - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Clarke Walton - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Mary Wong - support Hotel, per diem Carlos Souza - - support Air travel William Drake - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Commercial and Business Users Constituency (CBUC) Zahid Jamil - full support airfare, hotel, per diem, (First choice) Mike Rodenbaugh - full support airfare, hotel, per diem (second choice) (Zahid Jamil's name has been submitted as the first choice) Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISCPC) Tony Holmes - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Tony Harris - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Greg Ruth - full support airfare, hotel, per diem Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) Kristina Rosette - support hotel + per diem Zybnek Loebl - support airfare Ute Decker - not attending meeting Cyril Chua - not attending meeting Registry Constituency Chuck Gomes Jordi Iparraguirre Edmon Chung The RyC has not identified any member representatives who would not be able to attend the Mexico City ICANN meetings if they did not receive travel funding, so we would like to roll over any funding allocated for the RyC to any applicable future in-person meetings (e.g., Sydney) that occur this fiscal year. Attached please find the table the travel drafting team established for ICANN support. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2