February 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

ACSO meeting
by Avri Doria Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

Hi, The enclosed memo covers the resolution we came to on this meetings ACSO experiment. I am available to answer any question anyone might have. I hope you find that the topics bear a strong resemblance to some of our suggestions. The next task is to pick the participants from the GNSO. A couple boundary conditions: - Every ACSO gets 3 maybe 4 participants at the table. I mentioned that because of the restructuring we were doing into SGs, that I thought we could do with 4 but did not believe we could do with fewer then 4. The SSAC chair was kind enough to allow us one of theirs, if needed, to make sure we had 4. There will be a maximum of 20 people at the table. - We have decided that chairs would NOT be at the table. - We can seat different people for each of the sessions. Though we can also seat the same person for both if we choose. At this point, unless there is objection, I suggest that each proto-SG pick its participants and let the list know so that I can pull the list together. Please do this as soon as it is practical and please pass this message on to those who are responsible for setting up the SGs. Thanks a.

4 6

Whois Study Motion
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

I am hereby making the following motion for possible consideration at the Council meeting in Mexico City on Wednesday, 4 March. GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois studies. Whereas: In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> ) Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ <http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/> ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf> ) On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> ) The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> ) This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and to deliver a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whoi s_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report <https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#whoi s_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report> ). On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its recommendations for consolidating and considering further Whois studies. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct0 8.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct 08.pdf> On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of special meetings on Whois studies, and to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Council would then ask staff to perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the Council would decide which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri Doria convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This 'Whois Study Drafting Team' is tracked on a wiki page at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion> . The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC. For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. The selection of these initial studies does not foreclose further consideration of the remaining studies. Resolved: Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois studies listed below, and report its findings to Council as soon as possible, noting that Staff need not fulfill the full request at once but may fulfill the requirements in stages. 1) Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2): Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html> Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor extent to generate spam and other such illegal or undesirable activities. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html> Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses caused by public display of Whois. Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS data in spam generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html> 2) Study 11. Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois records will detract from data accuracy and readability. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html> 3) Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 & GAC 11) Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is increasing when compared with the total number of registrations; b) Proxy and private WHOIS records complicate the investigation and disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and other sites perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations and non-private registrations; c) Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations or non-private registrations. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html> Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html> GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is curtailed or prevented by the use of proxy and privacy registration services. GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately associated with fraud and other illegal activities as compared with non-proxy registrations. 4) Group E (Studies 3 & 20) Study 3 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services are not revealing registrant/licensee data when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as required to avoid liability under registration agreement provisions that reflect the requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html> Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services do not promptly and reliably relay information requests to and from registrants/licensees. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html> 5) Group C (GAC Studies 5 & 6) GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are legal entities are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are natural persons. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration. GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are operating domains with a commercial purpose are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are acting without commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration. 6) Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 & GAC 10) Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes and not for use by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html> Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal the identity of registrants who use proxy services is directed toward registrations made by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html> GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/privacy service users are legal persons. GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains that are registered using proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes. Council further requests that Staff refer to original study submissions (posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/ <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/> ), for statements of how study results could lead to an improvement in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of survey/study needed, including data elements, data sources, population to be surveyed, and sample size. Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses. At any time, Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses. Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to GAC representatives once it has been approved.

1 0

GNSO Council Restructuring Implementation Plan- form Restructuring team
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

Dear Councillors, The GNSO Council agreed at its meeting on Thursday, 19 February 2009 as an action item arising from Item 5: GNSO Council Restructuring Implementation Plan (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-restructuring-implementation-plan…) to form a GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team to be comprised of mostly Council members and at least one person from each constituency. The task of the drafting team will be to: - initially edit the list of Restructuring work item sent to the Board http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf - discuss the items one by one, then draft the appropriate motions for a Council vote. A mailing list has been created: gnso-restruc-dt(a)icann.org (gnso-restructuring drafting team) With public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-restruc-dt/ We are anxious to start the group and a face to face meeting is planned in Mexico City on Sunday 1 March, 16:00 - 17:00 in Don Diego 2. Please inform me <gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org> if you would like to be subscribed to this drafting team. 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

RE: [council] Re: Notice of Intent to Form new City Top-Level-Domain Constituency
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

Thanks Rob. Any thoughts on the timing of the formation of this constituency, assuming they will move forward? Would they be included on a observer only basis until there are actually contracted members within their constituency? Or is this left up to the Registry SG to define/decide? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Notice of Intent to Form new City Top-Level-Domain Constituency From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, February 20, 2009 10:22 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear GNSO Council Members; As I shared on the GNSO Council call yesterday, for your information, attached please find a copy of the Notice of Intent to Form a New GNSO Constituency (NOIF) submitted this week by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBerlin GmbH & Co. KG proposing to form the new City Top-Level-Domain Constituency. The document has also been posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm. As Avri Doria informed you yesterday,, she has set aside time during your public meeting agenda in Mexico City for brief presentations by all organizations that have submitted NOIFs by that time. Looking forward to seeing you in Mexico City! Best regards, Rob Hoggarth +1 424.558.4805

1 0

WHOIS motion, working definitions of key terms and reference chart for Council review and action in Mexico City
by Liz Gasster Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

All, The WHOIS drafting team has completed its work in developing a motion for Council consideration and action at its open meeting 4 March in Mexico City. The motion is attached for your review, and it has been posted under WHOIS references under the wiki discussion link on the GNSO Council wiki: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_references. Also attached (and posted, same link) are the "draft working definitions" for key terms referenced in various study suggestions, and a revised chart that contains all the studies being considered by the GNSO Council, amended to reflect the grouping of certain overlapping or similar studies into "clusters" identified by letter. Hopefully this chart will make it a bit easier to refer to from the study group references in the motion. Avri and Chuck have asked me to urge you to review the motion carefully, forward to your constituencies quickly for their review, and be prepared to take action on the motion at the Wednesday 4 March meeting. In addition, this will be forwarded ASAP by the appropriate ICANN staff to both the ALAC and GAC. Thanks, Liz

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, 19 February, 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 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 19 February, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090219.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolution 19 February 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes please find the resolution that was passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 19 February 2009. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen MOTION on Registration Abuse Policies Charter ================================================ Proposed by Kristina Rosette Seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh Whereas GNSO Council Resolution (20081218-3) dated December 18, 2008 called for the creation of a drafting team "to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations[sic] Abuse Policy". Whereas a drafting team has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the open issues documented in the issues report. Whereas it is the view of the drafting Team that the objective of the Working Group should be to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to enable the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch PDP on registration abuse. Whereas the drafting team recommends that the GNSO Council charter a Working Group to (i) further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and (ii) take the steps outlined below. The Working Group should complete its work before a decision is taken by the GNSO Council on whether to launch a PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in the Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. CHARTER Scope and definition of registration abuse - the Working Group should define domain name registration abuse, as distinct from abuse arising solely from use of a domain name while it is registered. The Working Group should also identify which aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and which are within the set of topics on which ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars. This task should include an illustrative categorization of known abuses. Additional research and identifying concrete policy issues - The issues report outlines a number of areas where additional research would be needed in order to understand what problems may exist in relation to registration abuse and their scope, and to fully appreciate the current practices of contracted parties, including research to: 'Understand if registration abuses are occurring that might be curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse policies were established' 'Determine if and how [registration] abuse is dealt with in those registries [and registrars] that do not have any specific [policies] in place' 'Identify how these registration abuse provisions are [...] implemented in practice or deemed effective in addressing registration abuse'. In addition, additional research should be conducted to include the practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties, such as abusers, registrants, law enforcement, service providers, and so on. The Working Group should determine how this research can be conducted in a timely and efficient manner -- by the Working Group itself via a Request for Information (RFI), by obtaining expert advice, and/or by exploring other options. Based on the additional research and information, the Working Group should identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. SSAC Participation and Collaboration The Working Group should (i) consider inviting a representative from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to participate in the Working Group; (ii) consider in further detail the SSAC's invitation to the GNSO Council to participate in a collaborative effort on abuse contacts; and (iii) make a recommendation to the Council about this invitation. Workshop at ICANN meeting in Mexico City on Registration Abuse Policies - In order to get broad input on and understanding of the specific nature of concerns from community stakeholders, the drafting team proposes to organize a workshop on registration abuse policies in conjunction with the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. The Working Group should review and take into account the discussions and recommendations, if any, from this workshop in its deliberations. The working group established by this motion will work according to the process defined in working_group_process. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?working_group_process Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Today's motion on a WG charter on Registration Abuse Policies Charter
by Avri Doria Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Hi, In reading the motion before the meting, it seems that one thing is missing fro that charter and that is the working rules. since we do not have a standard set worked out by the PPSC WG work team yet, we have been including them explicitly in every charter. I have pulled the set of process we used from the IRTP Part A charter and put them on a wiki page. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?working_group_process would the following be acceptable as a friendly amendment: As a last line add. The working group established by this motion will work according to the process defined in https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?working_group_process. thanks a.

1 0

Second draft of an Applicant Guidebook: What You Told Us
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 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] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-18feb09-en.htm Draft Applicant Guidebook: What You Told Us 18 February 2009 A second draft of an Applicant Guidebook that details the process of applying for new generic top level domains was released today along with a detailed analysis of comments received so far http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv1-analysis-public-comments-18fe… [PDF, 588K]. A vital part of ICANN's decision-making process is the feedback that the community provides. The first draft Applicant Guidebook saw hundreds of comments submitted. "The amount of feedback and its quality is really pleasing" said Dr Paul Twomey, President and Chief Executive Officer. "We've listened carefully to what was said and that has produced many changes in this version of the Guidebook. It's also clear that further discussion on some key areas is needed and we will start work on those immediately." In recognition of the response, ICANN's staff has prepared a series of analyses, totaling 155 pages, and divided up according to specific topics so that that those making comments are able to see how their points were taken into account. The responses have directly influenced changes to the guidebook. In a further attempt to make the changes clear and accessible the draft Guidebook is in "red-line" format. The second draft of the Guidebook has been released simultaneously with the analysis so that it is possible to see the direct relationship between the comments and the changes made. There have been a number of overarching issues raised in the comment process that require further work and so remain unchanged in this draft. Those issues are: Trademark protection Security and stability Malicious conduct Demand and economic analysis "It is very important to take the time to resolve these overarching issues. DNS stability, user protection, and trademark rights must not be undermined by the introduction of new gTLDS. As a consequence it is unlikely that the application round will open before December 2009" Dr Twomey said. This is the first time this depth of analysis has occurred. Whilst ICANN relies heavily on public comment (over 50 comment periods were held in 2008) many have suggested that it is often difficult to understand how comments have shaped outcomes. This analysis is an attempt to address that concern. The ICANN model remains one of coordination, not control, and the resilience of its decision-making has always stemmed from the process of bringing together different viewpoints. "We are looking forward to meeting with the intellectual property community, the security community and all others that have an interest to work through specific suggestions for addressing their concerns in the next 6-8 weeks" Dr Twomey said. New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2 (V2) Public Comment Forum http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-2-en.htm Media Contacts: Paul Levins Executive Officer and Vice President Corporate Affairs ICANN Ph: +1 310 745 6588 E: paul.levins(a)icann.org International: Andrew Robertson Edelman (London) Ph: +44 7921 588 770 E: andrew.robertson(a)edelman.com Selected Changes to Each Module of the Guidebook Module 1: Intro to Application Process Timeline: Clarified that the objection filing period closes after Independent Evaluation results are posted Public comments: Included language on role of public comments in the evaluation process Community-Based applications: Added clarification on community vs. open and why these terms are used; added language on intent of community-based category and under what circumstances community claims are evaluated IDN: Updated sections on compatibility problems, IDN tables, and phonetic representation item Fees: Essentially eliminated comparative evaluation fee - it is now structured as a deposit and returned if criteria are met; added credit for qualified 2000 round applicants: added refund structure; reduced annual registry fees and simplified fee structure Module 2: Evaluation Procedures String confusion: In order to better describe protections against user confusion - added more language to distinguish when different similarity checks are made (visual, aural, meaning); clarified relationship between string confusion objections and contention between similar strings; described improvements to the algorithm for testing visual similarity. String requirements: Added more detail on prohibition of hexadecimal and octal strings; updated ongoing revision process of IDNA protocol Geographical names: Clarified that country and territory names in all languages would be considered and augmented documentation requirements for government approval Attachment to Module 2 - Evaluation Questions & Criteria Tech/ops: Supplemented "preventing abusive registrations" question by calling for takedown procedures and measures to reduce opportunities for phishing/pharming: updated RFC revisions and added RFCs for DNSSEC; proposed changing scoring to encourage applicants to escrow thick data Financial: Reorganised questions to make scoring more clear. Overall: Clearly marked questions where responses will be kept confidential, or where responses are optional; revised scoring slightly Module 3: Dispute Resolution Procedures Legal status: Included language on objector rights and participation in dispute resolution process; clarified that legal rights objections are for registered and unregistered trademarks Standing: Inserted standing section for morality & public order objection to reflect current considerations; clarified that community objector must be related to community in application Procedures: published new set of revised, detailed procedures, added option for more than one panelist at parties' option for legal rights objections Standards: Inserted standards for morality and public order disputes Other: Included a proposal for an Independent Objector role in limited circumstances Module 4: String Contention Procedures Contention resolution: Included auctions as mechanism of last resort (including rules and procedures); described how a foundation would be employed to distribute funds accruing from an auction; supplemented section on how applicants may self-resolve contention Comparative evaluation: revised scoring for more granularity and specificity, added comparative evaluation steps for when more than one applicant passes comparative evaluation (instead of auction) Module 5: Transition to Delegation: Registry Agreement Modified process for amending agreements Modified registry fees section: lowering fees and simplifying structure Reinstated transparency and equivalent treatment clauses Included proposed registry-registrar model: lifting separation requirements in a limited way Included requirement for advance notice on price changes Added new language requiring community-based TLDs to comply with self-imposed registration restrictions Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft schedule of GNSO related meetings in Mexico City
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Dear All, Attached please find a draft schedule of GNSO related meetings in Mexico City. Please let me have your comments and additions so that a final version can be produced. Thanks you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0