December 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Public Comment: One & Two-Character .CAT Domains
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 21, 2009

Dec. 21, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-18dec09-en.htm العربية 中文 English Français Español Русский 日本語 Deutsch Português 한국어 Italiano Public Comment: One & Two-Character .CAT Domains 18 December 2009 ICANN is today opening a public comment forum on a proposed amendment from Fundacio puntCAT to Appendix 6 of the .CAT Registry Agreement. On 19 October 2009, ICANN posted for public information a request submitted by puntCAT through the Registry Services Evaluation Process for a request for proposals process to release single and two-character names in .CAT. The puntCAT proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/puntcat-request-19oct09-en.pdf [PDF, 57K]. As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html) ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination to determine whether the proposal might raise significant security or stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposal did not raise such issues in .CAT. [Note that, from 13 June to 13 July 2008, ICANN conducted a public comment forum on a proposed single-character second-level domain names allocation framework (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/proposed-scsld-allocation-framework…) which supported the allocation single-character second-level domain names in existing registries and reviewed various allocation methods.] The proposal requires an amendment the .CAT Schedule of Reserved Names (Appendix 6). A copy of the proposed amendment is available here [PDF, 192K]. Comments on the proposed amendment submitted to cat-scsld-amendment at icann.org will be considered until 17 Jan 2010 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/cat-scsld-amendment/. All documentation related to the puntCAT proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009009. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New gTLD Program - ICANN Proposes Draft Expression of Interest / Pre-Registrations Model
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 21, 2009

Dec. 21, 2009

Please note the New gTLD Program is open for public comment until 27 January 2010 New gTLD Program - ICANN Proposes Draft Expression of Interest / Pre-Registrations Model http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18dec09-en.htm 18 December 2009 ICANN is publishing today for public comment a draft model for soliciting Expressions of Interest for new generic top-level domains (new gTLDs) [PDF, 192K]. According to this EOI / pre-registration model, entities interested in participating in the first round of the New gTLD Program are required to submit basic information about the participating entity and the requested top-level domain, also referred to as "string". The model is a direct result of community recommendations for such an undertaking. The Board directed that a draft model be constructed based on public comment for additional discussion. A decision on whether to proceed and, if so under what model, will be taken after this round of public comment. The public comment period opens on 18 December, 2009 and closes on 27 January, 2010. Details can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#draft-eoi. The proposed model published today is not an operationally complete plan, i.e., it is not intended to include all the details that would be needed for implementation of a functioning process. Rather, it is intended to convey the detail necessary for robust public discussion. After the end of this public comment period, the ICANN Board will convene to consider the community feedback and decide on the path forward. A decision is expected in the first quarter of 2010. If approved, the final process and the opening date for EOI will be published. Highlights of the draft EOI / pre-registration model: .Participation in the EOI is mandatory for eligibility to submit a gTLD application in the first round. Subsequent application rounds will be open to any eligible applicants. .A deposit of US$55,000 is required for the EOI, and will be used as a credit against the US$185,000 evaluation fee. .The deposit is refundable if the New gTLD Program does not launch within a specific time period. Details will be outlined in the final EOI model. .Participants are notified that there may be subsequent amendments to the Draft Applicant Guidebook. It is the intention to conclude many current open issues prior to initiation of the EOI process. .A fully executed communications campaign, intended to ensure global awareness about the EOI, will precede the opening of the process. .Participants will be required to provide specific information concerning the participating entity and the requested string. .The participant and string information will be made public. .The EOI launch is conditional on the conclusion of many of the outstanding issues, for example, issues concerning vertical separation and the IDN three-character string requirements. Solutions for these and other issues are expected to be included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 4. Below is a short Q&A regarding the proposed EOI draft model. For details, please refer to the http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/eoi-model-18dec09-en.pdf [PDF, 192K]. What is the value in conducting an EOI / pre-registration process? An EOI process could provide ICANN and the Internet community important information that will contribute to a better understanding of, for example: the economic demand for new gTLDs; the number and kind of strings requested; certainty as to root-zone delegation rates; and inform the program's operational readiness plan. It is also believed that the draft EOI model may assist with the resolution of outstanding issues. The impetus for publishing an EOI model began at the ICANN Seoul Meeting where a significant number of community members expressed interest in evaluating a process that calls for "expressions of interest" from organizations that have a serious interest in applying for a new gTLD. The Board subsequently directed staff to develop a model, and in order to facilitate consideration of these issues, staff posted a set of conceptual questions relating to the EOI for community feedback. The analysis of these comments helped in the development of the current proposed model. Are there any pre-conditions for the launch of the EOI? Yes, if the Board approves this path forward, there are a few pre-conditions to the EOI launch, for example: t he resolution on issues regarding vertical separation of registries and registrars; resolution on the three-character string requirements; the publication of Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 4; the execution of a communication campaign that will work to ensure that all parties wishing to participate are knowledgeable of the opportunity. How does the EOI impact the continuing development of the program? ICANN and the community continue to work on the program's development and the resolution of open issues, including the next iteration of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, and the program's operational readiness. Who can participate in the EOI process? As outlined in the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 3, any public or private organization from any part of the world can apply. As described above, certain key provisions that significantly affect an entity's ability to participate would have to be settled prior to the EOI launch. When will the EOI application period open? The ICANN Board will be considering the draft EOI model and the community feedback during its meeting in February, 2010. If the Board decides that this is the path forward, staff will publish the final model along with instructions for a specific launch date. How will EOI applications be submitted? Entities will be able to apply on-line. ICANN will use the TLD Application System (TAS) that is already in development for the program. The TAS system will be accessed through ICANN's website. What information will be required from participating entities? The proposed draft model requires participants to answer questions 1 through 14, which are currently outlined in the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 3: Evaluation Questions and Criteria (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-evaluation-criteria-clean-04… [PDF, 741K]). These include: contact information of the participating entity; proof of legal establishment and good standing; disclosures concerning the participant's background, and; the requested string and associated IDN information, if applicable. Can an entity that does not participate in the EOI still be eligible to apply when the New gTLD Program officially launches? Yes, but not in the first round. According to the proposed draft model, participation in the EOI is mandatory for eligibility in the first new gTLD application round. There will be future opportunities to apply, however, the dates are not yet available. Why is a deposit required and how was the US$55,000 determined? One of the objectives of the EOI process is to generate data that will drive validation of implementation work and operational readiness. The deposit is one means of giving weight to the process and the submissions. Absent a deposit of a sufficient amount, participants could provide false or misleading information, which would undermine the reliability of the data to be used for the purposes intended. The proposed US$55,000 EOI deposit is the non-refundable portion of the evaluation fee (currently US$185,000 as per Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 3). This amount strikes a balance between two negative outcomes, that a low amount could result in speculation and a high amount could be a barrier to entry. The US$55,000 deposit is would be considered as a credit against the eventual fee that accompanies submission of an application. Is the deposit refundable? Under the current proposed draft model, the US$55,000 deposit is non-refundable, except in specified, limited circumstances, for example, if the first application round does not start within a defined time period (currently, 18 months from the closing date of the EOI submission period). What happens to the EOI information collected by ICANN? ICANN plans to publish on its website the information collected from the participants along with the requested strings submitted during the EOI. Related Resources : .For Program details, go to: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm .Full Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 3: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf (PDF, 1,980K) .Related previous announcement and public comment: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov09-en.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions 17 December 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 18, 2009

Dec. 18, 2009

Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were passed unanimously during the Council meeting on Thursday, 17 December 2009. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09) Motion by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Olga Cavalli Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a "tool kit" of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-0…>, p. 46.); Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182>); Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report; Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review; Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations; Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting; Whereas the implementation of the toolkit has process and budgetary implications; RESOLVED, the Council approves the recommendations (<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05n…>) and directs Staff to: 1) share the recommendations with the Board; 2) post the document on the GNSO web page at <http://gnso.icann.org/>; 3) estimate the cost of the services; 4) estimate what funds might be available; 5) prioritize the list of services in cooperation with the Council; 6) develop specifications for providing the services, including requirements for their use and procedures for requesting them; and 7) notify applicable GNSO organizations of the services, specifications and procedures for requesting them. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. 2 Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) and amended by Kristina Rosette Motion made by: Stéphane van Gelder Seconded by: Debra Hughes Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p df ) to the GNSO Council requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program; Whereas, in response to the Board's letter, on 28 October 2009 the GNSO Council created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the staff implementation models of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System that were proposed for inclusion in the Draft Application Guidebook; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf to the GNSO Council describing an alternative proposal to address trademark concerns in the New gTLD Program that was supported by a consensus of its members; Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the STI Report, and the minority reports included therein, and desires to approve the alternative proposal recommended by the STI review team; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the STI review team in developing the STI alternative proposal on an expedited basis; Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the overall package of recommendations contained in the STI Report, and resolves that the STI proposal to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure as described in the STI Report are more effective and implementable solutions than the corresponding staff implementation models that were described in memoranda accompanying the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to forward the recommendations to the Board in response to its 12 October 2009 letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p df) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a public comment period that will end on 26 January 2010 to allow the ICANN community to comment on the STI recommendations prior to finalization of the model to be included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook. The motion passed unanimously by a roll call vote of all Council members present. Council members absent: Contracted Party House - Registrar Stakeholder Group: Adrian Kinderis Non Contracted Party House - NCSG - Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong 3. Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical Integration PDP Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by Bill Drake and Jaime Wagner WHEREAS, the GNSO Council requested that Staff prepare an Issues Report on Vertical Integration at its 24 September 2009 meeting; WHEREAS, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf has been delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 December 2009<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=display;is_incipient=1;p…>; WHEREAS, in light of the approaching year-end holidays and the numerous important issues pending before the GNSO Council, the Council desires to have ample time to evaluate the recommendations contained in the Issues Report; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the Council acknowledges receipt of the Issues Report, thanks Staff for its efforts to produce the report, and agrees to delay consideration of the decision on whether to launch a PDP on the topic of vertical integration until January 2010. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

GNSO Council Approval of STI Review Team Recommendations
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

Peter, I know that Staff has already informed the Board that the GNSO Council approved a motion earlier today to forward the STI Review Team Recommendations to the Board, but I wanted to follow-up with some personal observations. Over the last 10 years the DNSO/GNSO has often been criticized for its inability to get things done and those criticisms are accepted. The very nature of a global, bottom-up policy development process requires great time and effort and developing processes for making it successful have been an ongoing challenge, one that is continuing now and will into the future. At the same time, I personally believe that we have seen progressive improvements over the last several years and those improvements laid the foundation for the accomplishments of the STI Review Team. I want to make sure that the Board and the broader ICANN community appreciate the significance of the STI Review Team work. They were given a very difficult task with a nearly impossible deadline. Were it not for the scheduling of the GNSO Council meeting, the deadline would have been met. As it stands, the Council missed the deadline by only three days. I cannot take any credit for this accomplishment. The full credit goes to each member of the STI Review Team and the Staff members who supported them. As you know, I have been around since the beginning of ICANN. I have never been so impressed with the cooperative spirit of everyone on a team. At the beginning, I don't think there were many who thought it was possible to reach any sort of reasonable agreement and especially in such a short timeframe. But, without exception, every individual and the groups they represented constructively worked together to produce the product you received. There are still points of disagreement that will be further vetted in the coming days and weeks, but the overall package of recommendations is one that the Council unanimously supported. I know full Board will join me in acknowledging this accomplishment and thanking all those who made it happen. I am not going to call out names because that would require naming everyone on the team. It was a classic example of teamwork. Sincerely, Chuck Gomes GNSO Council Chair

2 1

Public Comment: STI Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs
by GNSO Secretariat Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

[To: gnso-sti(a)icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17dec09-en.htm Public Comment: STI Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs 17 December 2009 The Special Trademarks Issues Working Team (STI) has published its Report on its recommendations to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure to protect trademarks in the New GTLD Program. The public comment period ends on 26 January 2010. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti Special Trademark Issues Review Team Recommendations [PDF, 272K] http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf You can also find this report at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/. Background On 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter [PDF, 736K] to the GNSO requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program, as described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf [PDF, 198K]) and accompanying memoranda. Specifically, the Board Letter requested that the GNSO provide input on whether it approves the proposed staff model , or, in the alternative, the GNSO could propose an alternative that is equivalent or more effective and implementable. In response, t he GNSO adopted a resolution creating the Special Trademarks Issues review team (STI) on 28 October 2009, which included representatives from each Stakeholder Group ; At-Large; Nominating Committee Appointees; and the Government Advisory Committee, to analyze the specific rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion in the Draft Applicant Guidebook. The STI delivered to the GNSO Council its Report [PDF, 272K], which describes an alternative model that the STI believes is more effective and implementable than the model proposed in the Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3. The GNSO Council unanimously approved the recommendations contained in the STI Report for public comment and consideration by ICANN when it finalizes the proposed model for trademark protection in the New gTLD Program. For additional information on the new gTLD Program: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/related-en.htm. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: STI Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

[To: gnso-sti(a)icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17dec09-en.htm Public Comment: STI Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs 17 December 2009 The Special Trademarks Issues Working Team (STI) has published its Report on its recommendations to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure to protect trademarks in the New GTLD Program. The public comment period ends on 26 January 2010. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti Special Trademark Issues Review Team Recommendations [PDF, 272K] http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf You can also find this report at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/. Background On 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter [PDF, 736K] to the GNSO requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program, as described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf [PDF, 198K]) and accompanying memoranda. Specifically, the Board Letter requested that the GNSO provide input on whether it approves the proposed staff model , or, in the alternative, the GNSO could propose an alternative that is equivalent or more effective and implementable. In response, t he GNSO adopted a resolution creating the Special Trademarks Issues review team (STI) on 28 October 2009, which included representatives from each Stakeholder Group ; At-Large; Nominating Committee Appointees; and the Government Advisory Committee, to analyze the specific rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion in the Draft Applicant Guidebook. The STI delivered to the GNSO Council its Report [PDF, 272K], which describes an alternative model that the STI believes is more effective and implementable than the model proposed in the Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3. The GNSO Council unanimously approved the recommendations contained in the STI Report for public comment and consideration by ICANN when it finalizes the proposed model for trademark protection in the New gTLD Program. For additional information on the new gTLD Program: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/related-en.htm. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

VeriSign Notice of Fee Change
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

In my role as Council Chair, I just received the following notice: VeriSign, Inc. hereby notifies ICANN and all ICANN-accredited registrars of .com and .net domain names that effective July 1, 2010: 1. VeriSign's fee for each annual increment of a new and renewal .com domain name registration and for each transfer of a .com domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another will be $7.34, exclusive of any ICANN Variable Registry-Level Fee (as defined in the .com Registry Agreement) or any other ICANN fee; and 2. VeriSign's fee for each annual increment of a new and renewal .net domain name registration and for each transfer of a .net domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another will be $4.65, exclusive of any ICANN Variable Registry-Level Fee (as defined in the .net Registry Agreement) or any other ICANN fee. Except for the above-described fee changes, all other terms of the relevant registry and registry-registrar agreements remain unchanged. Chuck

1 0

FW: GNSO and STI work
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

Please see the attached note of thanks from Peter Dengate Thrush for the STI work. I have sent a separate message to Peter acknowledging the great work of the STI Review Team and making it clear that did not have anything to do with the great work that was done. Thanks again. Chuck ________________________________ From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:41 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maher, David Cc: ICANN Board of Directors; Denise Michel; Kurt Pritz; Glen de Saint Gery Subject: GNSO and STI work Dear David and Chuck, staff have sent to the Board the results of the GNSO Council vote on the STI report. On behalf of the Board, I want to thank both the GNSO Council, through you Chuck as its Chair, for its rapid response to the Board's request, and the STI Working Group, through you David, as its chair, for its intense and thoughtful work on these important matters. The Board was conscious in sending this request that much was being asked of the volunteers in the GNSO community. Please would you pass on to all those involved the Board's appreciation of their efforts. My regards Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board of Directors, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers +64 4 4998959 (DDI) +64 21499888 (mobile) +64 4 4710672 (fax)

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 17 December 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 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 Thursday, 17 December, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20091217.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec Happy listening and happy holidays! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

have to drop off call
by Mike Rodenbaugh Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

My phone battery just died, and I have another obligation to get to. I remain opposed to the PDP-WT face to face meeting, or even Council consideration of it, given no consensus in that group for such a meeting, and lack of enough information re budgeting and other priorities for Council to make an informed management decision. The BC is not prepared to vote on this issue in this meeting, without further information from Staff and discussion within our Constituency. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

2 1