January 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting - 3 Feb 2009
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 29, 2009

Jan. 29, 2009

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/ 3 February 2009 Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors - Agenda 1. Consent Agenda - a Approval of Minutes b Reports from Board Committees - Committees i Board Governance Committee 3 December 2008 Minutes and 7 January 2009 Preliminary Report ii Finance Committee 18 November 2008 Minutes and 13 January 2009 Preliminary Report iii IANA Committee 10 December 2008 Preliminary Report iv Public Participation Committee 16 December 2008 Minutes and 14 January 2009 Preliminary Report v Structural Improvements Committee 13 January 2009 Preliminary Report 2. 2009-2012 Strategic Plan 3. SSAC/RSSAC Stability Study 4. IDNccTLD Fast Track Update 5. Proposed Bylaw Revisions Requested by Nominating Committee 6. .SO Redelegation 7. .BY Redelegation 8 GNSO Improvements / Implementation a GNSO Council Term Limits b Role of Individual User 9 Renewal of .AERO Sponsorship Agreement 10 Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for Appointment of Liaisons to Board Committees 11 Proposed Bylaw Revisions Regarding Board Committees 12 Update on Compliance Improvements 13 Update on Mexico City Meeting Public Forum 14 Monthly President's Report 15 President's Strategy Committee / JPA Update 16 Security Initiatives Update 17 Making Information Available in Machine Processable Format 18 Board Only Session - CEO & Ombudsman Goal-Setting

1 0

Public Comment: Initial Report on Fast Flux Hosting
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 27, 2009

Jan. 27, 2009

[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: Initial Report on Fast Flux Hosting http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ff-initial 26 January 2009 A public comment period opens today for 20 days on an Initial Report on Fast Flux Hosting. In May 2008, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) and called for the creation of a working group on fast flux. The working group was asked to consider the following questions: . Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed? . Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed? . Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? . Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? . How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting? . How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting? . What technical (e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate) and policy (e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior) measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux? . What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? . What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation? . What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux? The Group was also tasked to obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making. The Fast Flux Working Group started its deliberations in June 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. In this report, the Working Group has provided initial answers to the charter questions, has drawn interim conclusions and has provided a number of ideas for next steps for discussion and feedback during the public comment period. It should be noted that at this stage the Working Group has not reached consensus on any of the ideas for next steps outlined in the report. The objective of the Working Group will be to review the input received during the public comment period and determine which, if any, of the proposed next steps receive the support of the Working Group for inclusion in the final report. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed for redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for further action. The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete Initial Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/fast-flux-initial-report-26j… before submitting comments. Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to: fast-flux-initial-report(a)icann.org. Public comments received can be accessed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/fast-flux-initial-report/. The deadline for submission of comments is 15 February 2009. Related links: Fast Flux Hosting Issues Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux… [PDF, 62K] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli Jan. 27, 2009

Jan. 27, 2009

Hi, I was just informed that Pierre Bonis is changing his job, and therefore had to resign from his position as GNSO observer. ccNSO will inform soon about his replacement. Regards Olga

1 0

Initial Report of the GNSO Fast Flux Hosting Working Group
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 26, 2009

Jan. 26, 2009

[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] Dear All, The Initial Report of the GNSO Fast Flux Hosting Working Group can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/fast-flux-initial-report-26j… and is posted on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/ and http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ The report will be posted for public comment in the next couple of days and you will be notified when this happens. Thank you. kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] [Motion on users and GNSO]
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 25, 2009

Jan. 25, 2009

I have a question. Assuming the answer regarding the clause below is yes, where/how do you envisage quickly finding these user representatives. Since their task will be to work with ALAC and At-Large to develop a recommendation to be "forwarded to the NCUC for their consideration", the implication is that they themselves are not from NCUC. Alan At 22/01/2009 08:23 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >My apologies for being several hours late, but I would like to make >the motion that is attached and copied below for consideration at >our 29 Jan meeting. A second is welcome as are friendly amendments. >..... > * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like > the GNSO to identify some noncommercial 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 NCUC for their > consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the > Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. >......

2 1

by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 25, 2009

Jan. 25, 2009

My apologies for being several hours late, but I would like to make the motion that is attached and copied below for consideration at our 29 Jan meeting. A second is welcome as are friendly amendments. Chuck GNSO Restructure - Motion re. Individual Users in the GNSO 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 noncommercial 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 NCUC for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. * 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 noncommercial users to identify noncommercial 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.

2 1

RE: [council] MEXICO Travel Support
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 24, 2009

Jan. 24, 2009

> would be distributed equally across constituencies That was what the Travel drafting team had proposed. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Perhaps some of the other constituencies do not plan on needing any travel funds for Sydney. We should straighten it out on our call next week. I'm just concerned that arrangements will get made before we do. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] MEXICO Travel Support From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Sat, January 24, 2009 8:44 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, My understanding is that the travel funds would be distributed equally across constituencies. Is not still the case? I interpreted that to mean for the full fiscal year and not on a first come first served basis until all funds are used up. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 9:18 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] MEXICO Travel Support > > > Chuck, > > If everyone on this list receives funding for Mexico City, > there will be nothing left for the RyC to rollover for the > next meeting. In fact, there would be nothing left for the > RyC for Mexico City. > > Still baffles me how constituencies with members with > billions of dollars in revenue and profits cannot figure out > how to budget for their Councilors' travel. > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] MEXICO Travel Support > From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Date: Thu, January 22, 2009 5:49 pm > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Dear All, > > Please find the GNSO list of participants chosen by each > constituency, to benefit from ICANN Travel support for the > meetings in Mexico City. > > This list has been submitted to the ICANN staff by the > required deadline, 22 January 2009. > > 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 > > 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 > > > > > > >

1 0

Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 24, 2009

Jan. 24, 2009

[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] Dear All, REMINDER: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jan09-en.htm Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) You are encouraged to submit comments on the Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) from 9 to 30 January 2009. Please note a summary report has been published in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ and can be accessed from the public comment section http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtp-report A public comment period opened on Friday 9 January 2009 for 21 days on an Initial Report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm The IRTP Part A PDP concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid 'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for 'partial bulk transfers' between registrars. A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. PLEASE NOTE: The Working Group will not make a final decision on which solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of the comments received during the public comment period and in the final constituency statements has taken place. Following its deliberations, the Working Group has made some preliminary conclusions for each issue, which it hopes will inspire further comments from the public as well as the constituencies. These preliminary conclusions are as follows: Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in which it is currently used to facilitate transfers. Some members suggested that finding a way to make the Registrant e-mail address more readily available could be addressed as part of an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS protocol. This could be through updates to the existing protocol, modification of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or adoption of the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol. However, after review and discussion none of these options received broad agreement. The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address, future IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would not change the current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to notify the registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before the process is completed. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic authentication. However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether these options should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be left to market solutions. Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is no need to incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars at this stage. The Working Group believes that these scenarios can be addressed either through the existing Bulk Transfer provisions, or through existing market solutions. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for further action. The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete Initial Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] before submitting comments. Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to irtp-initial-report@xxxxxxxxxx Public comments received can be accessed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-initial-report/. The deadline for submission of comments is 30 January 2009. Related links: Part A Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] Existing Transfer Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm Thank you for your cooperation. kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] MEXICO Travel Support
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 24, 2009

Jan. 24, 2009

Chuck, If everyone on this list receives funding for Mexico City, there will be nothing left for the RyC to rollover for the next meeting. In fact, there would be nothing left for the RyC for Mexico City. Still baffles me how constituencies with members with billions of dollars in revenue and profits cannot figure out how to budget for their Councilors' travel. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] MEXICO Travel Support From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, January 22, 2009 5:49 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear All, Please find the GNSO list of participants chosen by each constituency, to benefit from ICANN Travel support for the meetings in Mexico City. This list has been submitted to the ICANN staff by the required deadline, 22 January 2009. 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 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

2 1

Nominations closed for GNSO Council Vice Chair
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 23, 2009

Jan. 23, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org>] Dear Council Members, The nomination period, for the election of GNSO Council vice chair for the period running concurrently with GNSO Council chair, from 1 February 2009 until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected, is closed. Chuck Gomes is the only candidate, nominated by Olga Cavalli, a Nominating Committee Appointee, and seconded by Stéphane van Gelder a Registrar constituency representative. Chuck Gomes has provided a candidate statement which can be viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06121.html VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be by a roll call vote at the GNSO Council meeting on 29 January 2009. The candidate must receive at least 14 affirmative votes. Absentee voting will be required from those councilors who are not able to be present on the call. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC, and the GAC and the ccNSO Observer do not vote. Please note the GNSO Council meeting on 29 January 2009 as an important date because there must be quorum for the vote. Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0