February 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Notice of New Registry Service Proposal
by Patrick Jones 09 Apr '09

09 Apr '09

Dear Council members, ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day preliminary determination period on a request from RegistryPro to modify handling of names pending verification. Information on the proposal can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009001. Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry services proposal to registryservice at icann.org, this is not notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry Services Evaluation Process can be found at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Regards, 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

1 1

Notice of Intent to Form Cybersafety Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth 03 Mar '09

03 Mar '09

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

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli 28 Feb '09

28 Feb '09

Hi, Israel has joined the ccNSO. Regards Olga

1 0

Letter from ICANN CEO to GAC chair on WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin 28 Feb '09

28 Feb '09

Hello All, For information: See: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24feb09-en.pdf Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Current list of names for the ACSO
by Avri Doria 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Hi, We have up to 4 places for each of the panels. These are the names I currently have. I have been following trouhg on the idea of giving each of the 4 future SGs a seat on each panel if they wish it. EXPANDING THE NAME SPACE David Maher - Ry Stéphane Van Gelder - Rr Olga Cavalli - NCA (NCU seat) tbd - CU IMPROVING POLICY DEVELOPMENT Jeff Neuman - RySG Philip Sheppard - CU Olga Cavalli - NCA (NCU seat) tbd - Rr Please let me know if I have missed a name I should have, or the names for any of the empty slots or any changes. There will be a orientation meeting on Monday 0730-0830 in Don Soccoro for those participating. Breakfast will be provided. thanks a.

1 0

Alternate RAA motion
by Tim Ruiz 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the motion below. There is no question that the Council can discuss, debate, draft recs on anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our plates right now including much work to be done yet on the Improvements implementation. Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA amendments, or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal would have to agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to agree to them early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the possibility of incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have stalled unless the amendments move forward. As said before, approving the amendments does not prohibit further policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will get something in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for further work on a schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other important work we are doing - improvements, registration abuse, post-expiry deletes, transfers, etc. I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the proposed amendments and support this motion. Tim ===== Motion ===== Whereas: The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations; The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p… and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.

5 5

RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion
by Tim Ruiz 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

> I thought our intent was for this to be an amendment Sorry Stephane, didn't mean to jump the gun on this, I was just getting concerned about timing. I agree, requesting an amendment makes more sense. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Alternate RAA motion From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Thu, February 26, 2009 1:15 pm To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Thanks Tim, but I thought our intent was for this to be an amendment to Mike's motion, which I think makes more sense. In any event, I put forward the following as an amendment to Mike's motion: Whereas: The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations; The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd f and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process. Thanks. Stéphane Le 25/02/09 23:18, « Tim Ruiz » <tim(a)godaddy.com> a écrit : > > At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the motion below. There > is no question that the Council can discuss, debate, draft recs on > anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our plates right now > including much work to be done yet on the Improvements implementation. > > Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA amendments, > or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a > significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal would have to > agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to agree to them > early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the possibility of > incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have > stalled unless the amendments move forward. > > As said before, approving the amendments does not prohibit further > policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will get something > in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns > raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for further work on a > schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other important work we > are doing - improvements, registration abuse, post-expiry deletes, > transfers, etc. > > I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the proposed > amendments and support this motion. > > Tim > > ===== Motion ===== > > Whereas: > > The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since > May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process > related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods > and consultations; > > The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and > enforcement tools for ICANN; > > The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly > as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved > then implement them as quickly as possible. > > Resolve: > > The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p… > and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. > > The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments > further and identify those that the community believes could be further > revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA > that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process. > > > > > >

1 0

ALAC WHOIS results
by Alan Greenberg 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Steve Metalitz just pointed out that I had not sent this as I said I would at last week's Council meeting. My apologies. The ALAC is in the process of voting on this submission, and the result will be finalized on Monday, March 2nd. The attached spreadsheet gives the ALAC priorities. It also gives the averages before the ALAC vote, and after, with those above 2.5 highlighted in green. With a threshold of 2.5, the ALAC vote include two addition studies. If the threshold is increased to 2.65, the final list remains the same as before the ALAC submission. Alan

1 0

RAA Amendments
by Kurt Pritz 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Dear All: In follow up to my earlier comments and in response to some of the subsequent discussion by the Council, I thought it might be helpful to clarify the options available to ICANN in modifying registrar obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). My earlier comments indicated that two paths were considered to incorporate amendments into the RAA. There are, of course, three ways by which registrar obligations under the RAA can be modified: The first option, which is described in the RAA, requires a report, approval by a two-thirds majority of the GNSO, and ICANN Board action. As indicated previously, a new form of RAA adopted based on a two-thirds¹ vote of the Council would take effect upon expiration of each registrar¹s five-year RAA. With over 70% of all registrars' RAAs expiring between 1 June 2009 and 31 May 2011, the result would have been substantial (compulsory) adoption of the new RAA and significantly improved availability of compliance enforcement tools for most registrars. The proposed amendments did not receive the requisite two-thirds vote for approval. Staff will continue to engage the GNSO membership to address outstanding concerns raised in the process, to determine whether RAA amendment through this path may still be viable. The second option for amending the RAA requires Board approval and the voluntary adoption of a revised RAA by registrars. It is anticipated that some forms of incentive would be required to encourage adoption as I previously described. The third option is the GNSO policy development process that has the ability to modify the terms under which ICANN-accredited registrars do business through the policy development process. In particular, the RAA (at section 4.2: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#4.2) allows for the establishment and revision of policies and specifications in the following areas: 4.2.1 issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, technical reliability, and/or operational stability of Registrar Services, Registry Services, the DNS, or the Internet; 4.2.2 registrar policies reasonably necessary to implement ICANN policies or specifications relating to a DNS registry or to Registry Services; 4.2.3 resolution of disputes concerning the registration of Registered Names (as opposed to the use of such domain names), including where the policies take into account use of the domain names; 4.2.4 principles for allocation of Registered Names (e.g., first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after expiration); 4.2.5 prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars; 4.2.6 maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date contact information regarding Registered Names and nameservers; 4.2.7 reservation of Registered Names that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (a) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (b) intellectual property, or (c) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., "example.com" and names with single-letter/digit labels); 4.2.8 procedures to avoid disruptions of registration due to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar, including allocation of responsibility among continuing registrars of the Registered Names sponsored in a TLD by a registrar losing accreditation; and 4.2.9 the transfer of registration data upon a change in registrar sponsoring one or more Registered Names. These topics mark the boundaries of the "picket fence" within which policy development under the current RAA is possible. (A two-thirds GNSO majority would still be required in order for such policies to be enforceable against registrars, as is the case with the RAA amendment process.) The current set of proposed amendments, reached through community consultation and negotiation with registrars, would reach several areas that are not ordinarily subject to policy development within the picket fence. Please keep in mind that we are not evaluating the specific amendments, just the realm of potential policy development, and also that our analysis may not have taken all factors into account. In other words, the determination of what's inside the picket fence could conceivably result in a different answer under different circumstances. The following topics that were included in the original package of amendments sent to the GNSO do appear to fall within the picket fence of potential new obligations that could be imposed on registrars via Consensus Policies: · Escrow of Whois Privacy/Proxy Customer Data · Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Document · Registrar Contractual Relationships with Resellers (where the substantive topic lies within the picket fence) · Disclosure of Registration Licensee Contact Information · Registrar Disclosure of Its Own Contact Information · Operator Skills Training & Testing · Modification of Data Retention Requirements Based on our initial review, the following topics that were included in the original package of amendments sent to the GNSO appear to fall outside the picket fence, and therefore could not be imposed on registrars via Consensus Policies: · Registrar Auditing · Graduated Sanctions & Accreditation Suspension · Registrar Group Liability · Registrar Fees · Registrations by Registrars (the picket fence allows for policy development related to warehousing of domains by registrars, but the topic addressed by the proposed amendment - requiring registrars to comply with all RAA and consensus policy requirements for names registered by the registrar for registrar business use - would not be enforceable as a Consensus Policy under the RAA) · Modification of Arbitration Rights · Accreditation by Purchase · Use of ICANN-Accredited Registrars (is a topic appropriate for policy development by the GNSO, but it would not be enforceable through the RAA as a "Consensus Policy") · Streamlined Requirements for Registrar Notification of New and Revised Consensus Policies · Removal of References to U.S. Department of Commerce It is our expectation that the GNSO will continue to evaluate the need for and undertake policy development within the picket fence that would be applicable to all registrars. Nevertheless, we still see strong value to registrants and the greater Internet community in the proposed amendments, even if they cannot be uniformly applied at this time. In the event a system of incentives is implemented to encourage voluntary adoption by registrars, we will, of course, consult with the GNSO and its member-constituencies as we have throughout this process, to solicit input with regard to the most beneficial and meaningful ways and tools to encourage registrar cooperation. I hope this information is helpful and clear. I will answer what questions I can and get answers to others. Regards, Kurt Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1-310-301-5809 (office) +1-310-400-4184 (mobile)

5 10

GNSO Related Meetings Schedule
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Dear All, Attached please find the draft GNSO Related Meetings Schedule that should be read with the main schedule on page: http://mex.icann.org/full-sched Remote participation is possible for all the meetings on Saturday and Sunday. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0