January 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

New gTLD Council discussion MP3 15 January 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 15, 2009

Jan. 15, 2009

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Council discussion on new gTLDS at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-newgtlds-20090115.mp3 posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan Participants present on the call Council ======== Avri Doria - GNSO Council chair Chuck Gomes - Registries GNSO Council vice chair Edmon Chung - Registries Jordi Iparraguirre - Registries Kristina Rosette - IPC Ute Decker - IPC Stéphane van Gelder - Registrar Olga Cavalli - NCA Zahid Jamil - CBUC Tony Holmes - ISP Tony Harris - ISP Greg Ruth - ISP Mary Wong - NCUC William Drake - NCUC Carlos Souza - NCUC Terry Davis - NCA Olga Cavalli - NCA Alan Greenberg - ALAC liaison Pierre Bonis - ccNSO observer Absent apologies Adrian Kinderis Tim Ruiz Observers ========== Ken Stubbs - Ry Vanda Scartizini - ALAC Nick Wood - IPC Danny Younger Heike Jensen - ALS Terre des Femmes Michael Palage Ronald N. Andruff - RNA Partners, Inc. CBUC Steve Delbianco - CBUC Cheryl Langdon Orr - ALAC Chair Mike O'Connor - CBUC Jeff Neuman - Ryc Neustar Dirk Krischenowski - dotBerlin Caroline Greer - dotMobi J. Scott Evans - IPC Sébastien Bachollet - ALAC Paul Diaz - Registrar Jose Arce Carlos Aguirre Staff ====== Denise Michel Kurt Pritz John Jeffrey Dan Halloran Olof Nordling Patrick Jones Marika Konings Craig Schwartz Liz Gasster Karen Lentz Karla Valente Glen de Saint Gery Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Council discussion on new gTLDs
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 15, 2009

Jan. 15, 2009

I think it would be helpful for the questions or issues raised to be identified before we delve into the substance (e.g. Some comments raised questions of whether X is consistent with Principle G). -----Original Message----- From: owner-ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:31 PM To: ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: Council discussion on new gTLDs Dear Councillors, Please find the draft agenda for the Council discussion on new gTLDs, tomorrow, 15 January 2009 at 16:00 UTC. Please see below for the dial-in information. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_15_jan_2009 Agenda 15 Jan 2009 Draft Agenda Record attendance Review agenda Review guideline for the meeting Guidelines for the meeting keep to the topic under discussion no need to repeat questions/issues someone else made not a time to bring up new objections to the implementation plan, only to understand issues as they relate to the principles/recommendations and implementation guidelines we are not here to discuss the value of the initial recommendation. i.e. that is off topic. we will see were we get by the end of 2 hours and figure out what to do next. Topics 1 - Discuss areas at variance with GNSO policy principles, recommendations and guidelines. Possible areas include, i.a.: Principle G: Do the review criteria infringe on freedom of expression Recommendation 1: Are the price levels discriminatory? Recommendation 2: Extent of confusing similarity Recommendation 5: Reserved names issues geographic identifiers 2 char IDN Recommendation 17: what is the clear compliance and sanctions process? IG B: Recommended cost based fees with different applicants paying different fees. Are these fees really cost based? Are some applicants subsidizing other applicants? IG F: Board resolution process was recommended instead of Auction IG O: Are there any plans for a fee reduction schedule for gTLS applicants from economies classified as least developed? Others? 2 - Discuss the motions we passed vis a vis new gTLDs for Staff Clarification purposes introduction of IDN TLDs Implementation guideline (IG) E 3 - Staff Overview on the comments received 4 - Discuss follow-up process to this meeting Are further comments necessary or has this meeting been sufficient? If we need a Design Team to create a comments paper - Who will do it? when would it need to be avaialble to be useful? or should it wait until after the next revision if the problems still exist. .............................................................................................. Dial-in details: PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: GTLD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0494 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4862 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7733 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5243 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1386 1-800-880-485 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-89-654 0800-999-636 BELGIUM 32-2-402-2432 0800-4-8360 BRAZIL 0800-8912038 CHILE 1230-020-0281 CHINA* 86-400-810-4760 10800-712-1193 10800-120-1193 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156463 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-15 800-700-167 DENMARK 45-7014-0238 8088-6075 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-00-04 080-511-1431 GERMANY 49-69-2222-52104 0800-216-1601 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0639 00800-12-5999 HONG KONG 852-2286-5632 800-964-136 HUNGARY 06-800-15227 INDIA 000-800-852-1216 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3500 IRELAND 353-1-246-0036 1800-931-782 ISRAEL 1-80-9303048 ITALY 39-02-3600-0326 800-906-585 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4763 00531-12-1149 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5154 00531-12-1149 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1314 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8121 MEXICO 001-866-627-0541 NETHERLANDS 31-20-710-9321 0800-023-4655 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4641 0800-443-793 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-14 800-11982 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072119 POLAND 00-800-1210067 PORTUGAL 8008-12179 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9613011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9197 800-120-4057 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-15 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93390 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1052 00798-14800-6323 SPAIN 34-91-414-15-44 800-099-279 SWEDEN 46-8-566-10-782 0200-887-612 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-7718 0800-000-038 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7346 00801-137-565 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65091 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9015 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3215 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2115 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7019-0812 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1415 0800-018-0795 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3439 USA 1-210-795-0472 877-818-6787 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3205 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Response to GNSO Council resolution on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report
by Marika Konings Jan. 15, 2009

Jan. 15, 2009

Dear All, Please find below ICANN staff's response to the questions outlined in the motion that was adopted by the GNSO Council on 18 December 2008 on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues report (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions) With best regards, Marika ===================== ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification no later than 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report: 1. In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding "how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP", the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, "On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, 'IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements'." * Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C? As the issue of whether or not to allow the transfer of a domain name in RGP directly relates to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, ICANN staff deems it appropriate for the GNSO Council to consider whether this issue can be included in one of the upcoming PDPs in this area. As noted by the Technical Steering Group (http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm) that developed an RGP implementation proposal, 'allowing registrants to choose the redeeming registrar will introduce numerous technical and operational complications into the system', which staff thinks might be best dealt with in the context of the inter-registrar transfer policy. From the upcoming IRTP PDPs, PDP C (operational rule enhancements) seems to be best suited to potentially deal with this issue. The issue of whether or not to allow the transfer of a domain name in RGP could also be considered as part of an overall PDP dealing with other post-expiration domain name recovery issues. However, in consideration of the above, ICANN staff recommends that the GNSO Council consider the issue in one of the already foreseen IRTP PDPs, most logically IRTP PDP C. * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? The GNSO Council would need to adopt a motion stating that it would like to see this issue addressed in one of the upcoming IRTP PDPs. Following the adoption of this motion, the charter for the IRTP PDP that deals with this issue would contain text to reflect this decision to add this specific issue to that PDP. * What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C? This issue would be included in the Charter for the relevant Working Group, when drafted. 2. In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends ". . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . ." * How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP? Compliance efforts in combination with information and educational activities might be considered in this context. It should be noted that such actions would not necessarily require Council action. For example, ICANN's compliance department currently organizes educational workshops in conjunction with ICANN meetings at which information provision requirements incorporated in the RAA relevant to this topic could be included as a topic of discussion. Furthermore the Compliance team is currently conducting an audit as part of its 2009 audit schedule regarding the registrar requirement to have deletion and renewal policies clearly displayed on registrar websites. In addition, a workshop with interested parties such as the ALAC and registrars could be considered to discuss potential enhancements and/or educational initiatives. Another avenue to be explored, as noted by a previous Chair of the GNSO Council could be that 'perhaps ICANN and the GNSO can assist with providing authoritative information on the policies and processes of domain name registration to these [consumer protection] organisations'. * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? As noted above, the activities described do not necessarily require Council action. ICANN's Compliance team has already commenced some of above referenced work and further discussions are being held internally to determine the best way to conduct educational sessions relevant to registrar requirements concerning deletion and renewal policies. 3. Section 3.7.5 of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier)." * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? Yes, this requirement is consistently enforced. The ICANN Compliance Department investigates all complaints that are received with regard to the non-cancellation of the registration if the Registered Name Holder or someone acting on behalf of the Registered Name Holder does not renew the registration. It should be noted that there have been complaints that turned out to be unfounded, as many registration agreements contain provisions in which the Registered Name Holder consents to someone acting on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to renew the registration, an issue that has also been outlined in the Issues Report in further detail. * Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal? If not, why not? The above statement is not completely correct. Registrars are required to delete a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in the RAA, if a Registered Name Holder or someone acting on behalf of the Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal. In this context it might be worth pointing to an advisory that ICANN published in 2004 to make the community aware of modifications that many registrars have made in registration agreements that result in the registrar obtaining the consent of the registrant to auction and/or transfer a domain name registration to a third party if the Registered Name Holder does not renew his/her registration. See http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21sep04-1.htm for further details. 4. Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, "In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement." * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? Yes, this requirement is being enforced. However as noted before, this only applies if the registration is not renewed by the Registered Name Holder or someone acting on behalf of the Registered Name Holder. * Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement? If not, why not? In the case of termination of a registration agreement, the respective registration agreement would need to be analyzed in order to determine which conditions apply. The Expired Domain Deletion Policy only applies to expired domain names.

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

Hi, I participated yesterday in the ccNSO monthly call. These are the relevant issues that may be or GNSO interest: - Items for the Agenda in Mexico: There will be a session with Registy - Registrars There could be a Joint GNSO ccNSO session but it was not decided yet (No date and time were specified for these sessions) - Mike Silber was confirmed as ccNSO appointee to ICANN Board Seat Nr 12 - Under AOB there was a comment about GNSO and ccNSO implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009. ccNSO will propose a draft resolution in relation with this subject and will discuss it among their memeber´s list. - Full agenda of the conference call can be found at: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/agenda-council-13jan08.pdf - MP3 recording of the call can be found at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/calendar/ Best regards Olga

1 0

Re: [council] Draft Agenda for New gTLD meeting 15 Jan
by Avri Doria Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

3 2

First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02
by Avri Doria Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

Hi, As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something about this. Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02 "that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At- Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users" The following is an idea that has been discussed between the chair of ALAC and myself and vetted a little with relevant staff. I understand she has taken the proposal to the ALAC (I thought we were going to talk about it some more first, but never mind) and I am now bringing it to the council. Given the pressure of time, we could use a model similar to the one developed by the board to force the GNSO constituencies to action on restructuring. I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend 30 days coming up with a suggestion. Number of people: From the GNSO we could have at Option a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7 Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5 (given were we are heading with the restructuring it might be interesting to try that model. note this is not council members but constituency/SG members) From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5 If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the other 2. We should add a GAC observer as well. And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate. He handled the last such effort very well. As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for communicating with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs and for coming to consensus. The recommendation would then be subject to public review and then subject to approval by both the GNSO Council and ALAC using their own methods This would take longer then board motion requested, but we could at least give them a plan and a schedule. I figure it would take minimum 8 weeks from Time 0. If we act quickly, we could be ready for open discussions in Mexico City, with the comment period ending a week after that meeting. Allowing for a decsions shortly thereafter. Thoughts? Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant only to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus there is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO council in this process. I can certainly see the logic of his view and accept it if it is the predominant view in the council. I do, however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the Board motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion. a.

3 2

More on your travel comments/questions
by Doug Brent Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

GNSO Council, Two more questions (some echoed by multiple people) have come up on the travel support thread that I'd like to address: 1) Couldn't we just amend the approach and provide financial support for all counselors to travel to the Mexico City meeting, both providing more actual support, and avoiding some of the implementation issues with the current process? It is certainly true that the amount of money budgeted for travel support when compared to the ICANN budget is not large, and even if an amended approach would be applied to ccNSO and ASO (all subjects of this travel support procedure), the total budget impact would not be significant. However, it is important to recognize that the initial travel support recommendation came from balancing input of many, some saying all should be supported, and some saying no incremental travel support should be provided, and others commenting that additional stakeholders should be supported (e.g. the GAC). As with all budget expenditures, it is not only the amount but the prior agreement to spend the money that is important. Clearly, this will be reviewed along with the entire travel approach for next year, beginning with a workshop in Mexico City. 2) Why require an ICANN travel agent? There are several reasons for this: - Ensures that there is a consistent application of travel guidelines across all participants (equitable treatment); avoids staff oversight of the appropriateness of particular fares people might obtain (something no one wants). - Requires no cash outlay or expense tracking by those who are traveling - Increases ICANN's buying power (we recently got some discounts from United for example), inuring back to community benefit. - Provides for consolidated reporting of travel booked and actually taken There have been cases where ICANN booking was just not practical (for example, with tickets purchased in Cambodia). So, when impractical, staff has supported the use of outside agents. I track the GNSO email list, and know some of you personally. It is very clear that the GNSO councilors work very hard, and make a significant contribution to the ICANN community and the Internet community as a whole. In some sense, it would be easiest from a staff perspective to "just say yes" to comments made on the list (though there is the possibility of generating further debate from others currently quiet on the subject). Particularly with regards to these kind of issues, I think that you all expect and demand ICANN staff to ensure as much as possible that budgets (and the strategic decisions behind them) are followed, and that expenditures are being carefully managed and being made transparent. Again, email only goes so far in these kind of discussions, and I'd be happy to join a call with the travel committee or the entire council if that would help. Also, we will be scheduling a public session at the ICANN Mexico City meeting to receive input on and discuss the travel guidelines and their implementation, and get your thoughts about any changes that might be needed for the next fiscal year. Should you have questions about the implementation of the travel guidelines for Mexico City, please contact Kevin Wilson, who as I've noted earlier, will be involved in getting this feedback, and with your input, evolving the procedure for FY10. Best, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at16:00UTC
by Adrian Kinderis Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

Yes Mike I note 3 in my quick review... most others at 11am for the West Coasters. Sorry for my gross overstatement. ;) I retract my comment. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2009 1:45 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] RE: Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at16:00UTC We had Council calls at 5a.m. All last year, Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:36:15 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at 16:00UTC 3am Melbourne time. Terrific. Glad I filled out that Doodle. I know I know... stop complaining. Remind me again when the North Americans has a call any time from 10pm to 6am? Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2009 4:46 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Correction: New gTLD GNSO Council Thursday 15 January 2009 at 16:00UTC [To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, As agreed upon during the Council meeting, a new gTLD Council discussion is scheduled for Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 16:00 UTC. The call will be open to observers and alternates if Council members cannot attend. Please RSVP to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org so that we can make sure there will be enough lines. The call will be recorded and transcribed and posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 14:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+1DST 21:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 03:00 (Friday 16 January.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Dial-in details: PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: GTLD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0494 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4862 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1964 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7733 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5243 1-800-880-485 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1386 1-800-880-485 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-89-654 0800-999-636 BELGIUM 32-2-402-2432 0800-4-8360 BRAZIL 0800-8912038 CHILE 1230-020-0281 CHINA* 86-400-810-4760 10800-712-1193 10800-120-1193 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156463 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-15 800-700-167 DENMARK 45-7014-0238 8088-6075 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-164 0-800-1-12056 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-75 080-511-1431 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-00-04 080-511-1431 GERMANY 49-69-2222-52104 0800-216-1601 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0639 00800-12-5999 HONG KONG 852-2286-5632 800-964-136 HUNGARY 06-800-15227 INDIA 000-800-852-1216 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3500 IRELAND 353-1-246-0036 1800-931-782 ISRAEL 1-80-9303048 ITALY 39-02-3600-0326 800-906-585 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4763 00531-12-1149 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5154 00531-12-1149 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1314 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8121 MEXICO 001-866-627-0541 NETHERLANDS 31-20-710-9321 0800-023-4655 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4641 0800-443-793 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-14 800-11982 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072119 POLAND 00-800-1210067 PORTUGAL 8008-12179 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9613011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9197 800-120-4057 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-15 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93390 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1052 00798-14800-6323 SPAIN 34-91-414-15-44 800-099-279 SWEDEN 46-8-566-10-782 0200-887-612 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-7718 0800-000-038 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7346 00801-137-565 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65091 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9015 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3215 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2115 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7019-0812 0800-018-0795 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1415 0800-018-0795 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3439 USA 1-210-795-0472 877-818-6787 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3205 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Agenda for New gTLD meeting 16 Jan
by Avri Doria Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

Hi Based on what I have heard spoken of so far, the following is a draft agenda for the New gTLD meeting on 15 January. 1 - Discuss areas at variance with GNSO policy principles, recommendations and guidelines. Possible areas include, i.a.: - Principle G: Do the review criteria infringe on freedom of expression - Recommendation 1: Are the price levels discriminatory? - Recommendation 2: Extent of confusing similarity - Recommendation 5: Reserved names issues - geographic - 2 char IDN - Recommendation 17: what is the clear compliance and sanctions process? - IG B: Recommended cost based fees with different applicants paying different fees. Are these fees really cost based? Are some applicants subsidizing other applicants? - IG F: Board resolution process was recommended instead of Auction - IG O: Are there any plans for a fee reduction schedule for gTLS applicants from economies classified as least developed? - Others? 2 - Discuss the motions we passed vis a vis new gTLDs - introducion of idn tlds - Implementation guideline (IG) E 3 - Discuss the comments received 4 - Discuss follow-up process to this meeting

5 6

RAA amendment process
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

I have put off raising this issue until I had a chance to re-listen to the last Council meeting MP3, which I have now done. I have to admit that I was quite astounded when we were told that if the GNSO approved, this set of amendments would take effect over a five year period as contracts were renewed (with a possibility that some registrars could volunteer to amend their contract prior to expiration). The rationale given was that this is because the form of the contract was being changed, and that some of the new terms were outside of those eligible for consensus policy (that is, outside of the proverbial picket fence). I was one of the people who previously questioned how this new package could be considered a "consensus policy" since some terms were arguably outside of the eligible areas, so the rationale does make some sense. However, I find it hard to accept that this was the first time that this has been mentioned (in any of the three briefings that I have attended). In fact, during previous discussions, the ALTERNATIVE to approving this amendment package was to either renegotiate with registrars one-by-one (those who were amenable, that is), or to implement the changes as contracts expired. Since those options were clearly less desirable, the GNSO route was being pursued. Am I the only one who feels that the ground-rules were changed at the last moment? Alan

6 6