March 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
by Tim Ruiz 24 Mar '09

24 Mar '09

I personally agree with that. It should be left up to the constituency to decide how to use funds they are allocated. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, March 24, 2009 9:09 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> The RyC would just request that funding not be restricted to Councilors only. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:57 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > > > That was more or less the position of the RrC as well. But > since the majority of the Council decided otherwise, the > Travel Funding Drafting Team is just trying to figure out how > to distribute the available funds as fairly as possible. > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Tue, March 24, 2009 8:30 am > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, > <avri(a)acm.org>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > The RyC has always opposed travel funding be restricted to Councilors > and still holds that position. > > From a philosophical point of view, it is quite interesting > how easy it > is for people to spend money contributed by others. That is one of the > reasons the RyC supported the approach that each Constituency fund > travel for itself rather than using ICANN funds to subsidize it except > in cases of demonstrated need. There is a clear motivation to be good > stewards of our own funds that sometimes is not so strong > when using the > funds that come from other sources. > > I am not going to belabor this. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:33 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck; avri(a)acm.org; GNSO Council > > Subject: Re: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > > > > Hi Chuck, > > > > I have to side with Avri on this one ;-) Sounds like doing > > such historical digging is asking for a lot of work with no > > clear purpose. > > The only question we should be asking ourselves, IMO, is the > > one Avri asked: > > are we OK for these funds to be used to ensure that all > > councillors get funded in 09 or not. > > As I was unaware that these funds even existed, I would like > > to know to what other use they might be put before giving my > > answer. If it turns out the funds were just "sitting there" > > and would not be used for anything else anyway, then by all > > means let's use them to help fund people. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 24/03/09 01:30, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes(a)verisign.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > I was not suggesting anything about how the funds would > be used but > > > only that the additional information could be helpful for > > > constituencies to have in making any decisions regarding > > the use of the funds. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > >> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM > > >> To: GNSO Council > > >> Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I am not sure what productive purpose such a exercise > > would achieve. > > >> Are you suggesting that the money should be distributed > > according to > > >> donation proportionality? I think that might be > > counter-productive > > >> especially when what I was hoping to achieve was > > sufficient funds for > > >> all constituencies to send their participants to Sydney. > > >> > > >> I did not get the impression that proportional > > distribution was the > > >> motivation behind Phillip's comment. Rather I understood > > him to be > > >> pointing to the fact that the BC, coincidentally along > > with the NCUC, > > >> and ISPC could, at the moment only provide support for 1 > > participant > > >> in Sydney. > > >> > > >> a. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:39 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > >>> I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to go back > > and find out > > >>> what the various constituencies contributed to the fund. > > >> As I recall > > >>> various constituencies did not contribute the same amounts > > >> and I think > > >>> that they may like to know that information before making a > > >> decision > > >>> on how the funds are used. Philip's comment caused me to > > >> think in that direction: > > >>> "As much of this money came from the BC in the first > > place, I find > > >>> this a positive suggestion." > > >>> > > >>> Chuck > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > >>>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:05 PM > > >>>> To: GNSO Council > > >>>> Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> Are you suggesting we do such historical digging? I am > > >> not sure to > > >>>> what purpose. Are you suggesting we subdivide it according to > > >>>> contribution? > > >>>> I would find that difficult and possibly quite > > >> contentious at this > > >>>> point. > > >>>> > > >>>> a. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 09:50 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > >>>>> Would it be possible to prepare a brief report that shows > > >>>> the source > > >>>>> of the funds by constituency as well as the total funds > > >> available? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Chuck > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > >>>>>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:33 AM > > >>>>>> To: GNSO Council > > >>>>>> Subject: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I was wondering whether there would be general > support in the > > >>>>>> council for using the monies in this account to > > >> supplement the > > >>>>>> travel budget to Sydney and to Seoul in order to allow > > >>>> all current > > >>>>>> constituencies who wish to send 3 participants > > >> (Councilors, WG > > >>>>>> participants, SC ...) . > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> While we are asking for better funding in future > > >> years, we can > > >>>>>> be fairly certain that we will not get a raise in support > > >>>> for 2009. It > > >>>>>> may make sense to use these funds for that purpose - > > >> i have been > > >>>>>> asked why we are holding on to the money in a time when > > >>>> we need more > > >>>>>> support. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> If there is general support, I would like to ask the > > >>>> Travel DT to > > >>>>>> figure out how to make this allocation and then to bring > > >>>> a motion to > > >>>>>> the council. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> thanks > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> a. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
by Tim Ruiz 24 Mar '09

24 Mar '09

That was more or less the position of the RrC as well. But since the majority of the Council decided otherwise, the Travel Funding Drafting Team is just trying to figure out how to distribute the available funds as fairly as possible. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, March 24, 2009 8:30 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, <avri(a)acm.org>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> The RyC has always opposed travel funding be restricted to Councilors and still holds that position. >From a philosophical point of view, it is quite interesting how easy it is for people to spend money contributed by others. That is one of the reasons the RyC supported the approach that each Constituency fund travel for itself rather than using ICANN funds to subsidize it except in cases of demonstrated need. There is a clear motivation to be good stewards of our own funds that sometimes is not so strong when using the funds that come from other sources. I am not going to belabor this. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:33 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; avri(a)acm.org; GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > > Hi Chuck, > > I have to side with Avri on this one ;-) Sounds like doing > such historical digging is asking for a lot of work with no > clear purpose. > The only question we should be asking ourselves, IMO, is the > one Avri asked: > are we OK for these funds to be used to ensure that all > councillors get funded in 09 or not. > As I was unaware that these funds even existed, I would like > to know to what other use they might be put before giving my > answer. If it turns out the funds were just "sitting there" > and would not be used for anything else anyway, then by all > means let's use them to help fund people. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > Le 24/03/09 01:30, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes(a)verisign.com> a écrit : > > > > > I was not suggesting anything about how the funds would be used but > > only that the additional information could be helpful for > > constituencies to have in making any decisions regarding > the use of the funds. > > > > Chuck > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM > >> To: GNSO Council > >> Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am not sure what productive purpose such a exercise > would achieve. > >> Are you suggesting that the money should be distributed > according to > >> donation proportionality? I think that might be > counter-productive > >> especially when what I was hoping to achieve was > sufficient funds for > >> all constituencies to send their participants to Sydney. > >> > >> I did not get the impression that proportional > distribution was the > >> motivation behind Phillip's comment. Rather I understood > him to be > >> pointing to the fact that the BC, coincidentally along > with the NCUC, > >> and ISPC could, at the moment only provide support for 1 > participant > >> in Sydney. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:39 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >>> I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to go back > and find out > >>> what the various constituencies contributed to the fund. > >> As I recall > >>> various constituencies did not contribute the same amounts > >> and I think > >>> that they may like to know that information before making a > >> decision > >>> on how the funds are used. Philip's comment caused me to > >> think in that direction: > >>> "As much of this money came from the BC in the first > place, I find > >>> this a positive suggestion." > >>> > >>> Chuck > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:05 PM > >>>> To: GNSO Council > >>>> Subject: RE: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Are you suggesting we do such historical digging? I am > >> not sure to > >>>> what purpose. Are you suggesting we subdivide it according to > >>>> contribution? > >>>> I would find that difficult and possibly quite > >> contentious at this > >>>> point. > >>>> > >>>> a. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 09:50 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >>>>> Would it be possible to prepare a brief report that shows > >>>> the source > >>>>> of the funds by constituency as well as the total funds > >> available? > >>>>> > >>>>> Chuck > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >>>>>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:33 AM > >>>>>> To: GNSO Council > >>>>>> Subject: [council] Old DNSO funds and this year's travel. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I was wondering whether there would be general support in the > >>>>>> council for using the monies in this account to > >> supplement the > >>>>>> travel budget to Sydney and to Seoul in order to allow > >>>> all current > >>>>>> constituencies who wish to send 3 participants > >> (Councilors, WG > >>>>>> participants, SC ...) . > >>>>>> > >>>>>> While we are asking for better funding in future > >> years, we can > >>>>>> be fairly certain that we will not get a raise in support > >>>> for 2009. It > >>>>>> may make sense to use these funds for that purpose - > >> i have been > >>>>>> asked why we are holding on to the money in a time when > >>>> we need more > >>>>>> support. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If there is general support, I would like to ask the > >>>> Travel DT to > >>>>>> figure out how to make this allocation and then to bring > >>>> a motion to > >>>>>> the council. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> thanks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> a. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > >

3 3

Old DNSO funds and this year's travel.
by Avri Doria 24 Mar '09

24 Mar '09

Hi, I was wondering whether there would be general support in the council for using the monies in this account to supplement the travel budget to Sydney and to Seoul in order to allow all current constituencies who wish to send 3 participants (Councilors, WG participants, SC ...) . While we are asking for better funding in future years, we can be fairly certain that we will not get a raise in support for 2009. It may make sense to use these funds for that purpose - i have been asked why we are holding on to the money in a time when we need more support. If there is general support, I would like to ask the Travel DT to figure out how to make this allocation and then to bring a motion to the council. thanks a.

6 11

IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
by Edmon Chung 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

Hi Everyone, Following up on the discussion we had during our wrap up meeting in Mexico, would like to share some thoughts on a possible IDN gTLD Fast Track concept. From the discussion at that meeting as well as conversations during and after Mexico, it seems like there are a few items that could form a starting point for constructive discussion towards a possible IDN gTLD Fast Track: 1. The New gTLD schedule should not be delayed by an IDN gTLD Fast Track 2. The IDN ccTLD Fast Track schedule should not be delayed by an IDN gTLD Fast Track 3. An IDN gTLD Fast Track should be viewed as a backup plan should the New gTLD schedule be further delayed 4. Work on an IDN gTLD Fast Track should begin in preparation for the case that the New gTLD schedule is further delayed 5. The IDN gTLD Fast Track, if implemented, should: - follow closely the process of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track - aim to introduce "a limited number of non-contentious" IDN gTLDs - be based on the GNSO New gTLD Final Report, including the IDN WG outcomes report (i.e. should not require additional policy development) - encourage stronger protection of rights of others I think we would be allocating some time to discuss the issue in our upcoming conference call meeting. Would love to get some feedback and thoughts on the above items before our meeting. Wondering what people think about the above points... Edmon

5 10

Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfers Policy - Part A Policy Development Process
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]icann.org] [To: gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08[at]icann.org] Dear All, The Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfers Policy - Part A Policy Development Process http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-final-report-a-19mar09.pdf is posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ under the heading Transfers as well as on page: http://gnso.icann.org/index.html Please see the GNSO Council agenda for the meeting on Thursday 26 March 2009 at 19:00 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-26mar09.shtml Item 5 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) 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] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
by Tim Ruiz 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

Personally, if there can be a fast-track for so-called ccTLD IDNs I don't see why there can't be one for gTLD IDNs. But the only way I really see it working is if it only applied to existing gTLDs, the same way the current fast-track applies to existing ccTLDs. Neither should be for completely new concepts. Is that what you intended Edmon? Some other issues I see: 1. How many languages would each gTLD be able to fast-track? 2. Does everyone agree on what each gTLD stands for? For example, is .com for commercial, commerce, or company? 3. How will potential conflicts be resolved, between .biz and .com for example? I think those are solvable problems. And if the true goal of the fast-track is to meet "pressing needs" and "near-term demand" for IDN domain names, why not include the existing gTLDs for IDNs that can clearly be indentified as applying to them and would clearly generate objections if anyone else tried to apply for them? Why would or should it be limited to ccTLDs? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Fri, March 20, 2009 9:56 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Understood. Thanks for that Chuck. Stéphane Le 20/03/09 15:44, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes(a)verisign.com> a écrit : > I can't speak for Bruce but I suspect his 'other' category is the 'open' > category. The Guidebook doesn't actually treat 'geographic' as a class in the > same sense as 'community-based' or 'open' gTLD but Staff has expanded the > restrictions on geographic names beyond what the GNSO recommended and there is > still discussions between the Board and the GAC, but I think that mainly > concerns 2nd-level geographic names. > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:19 AM >> To: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO >> Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion >> >> >> Hi Bruce, >> >> I agree there is a clear difficulty in defining a >> non-contentious TLD. That is what I was saying in my previous >> email, and trying to do so clearly has us running the risk of >> ending up with "purposely-designed" non contentious TLDs so >> that their applicants can go first. >> >> However, I also think there is a logic behind the class or >> "type" breakdown that Edmun and others have suggested. The >> problem, once again, is that everyone tends to preach for >> their own religion and wants their class of choice to be >> recognized as the one to go first. >> >> There was a lot of talk about types of TLDs in Mexico and I >> don't think we can simply brush those ideas aside, even >> though once again I agree that they do create a lot of >> potential issues. >> >> On your final comment, I was not aware that there are 3 >> categories already. >> I thought a TLD could only be a community or open >> application, i.e. if you're not a community based >> application, you're open. Can you tell me a little more about >> this third "other" class please? How are the applications >> that are neither community nor open and thus, I suppose, go >> into this other class, defined? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> Le 20/03/09 02:02, « Bruce Tonkin » >> <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> a écrit : >> >>> >>> Hello Stéphane, >>> >>>> I actually think it makes a lot of sense to allow non-contentious >>>> TLDs a way forward before the mainstream new TLD launch, >> if it means >>>> TLDs that present more complicated issues get ironed out properly >>>> while at the same time not delaying the others. >>> >>> The problem becomes in defining "non-contentious TLDs". >>> >>> Even IDN-ccTLDs have issues around their contributions to costs and >>> their commitment to adhere to IDNA standards. >>> >>> Every TLD applicant that I have come across claims that >> their TLD is >>> "non-contentious". >>> >>> ICANN's experience with trying to manage a specific >> category (Sponsored in >>> 2004) was not successful. By setting up one group to go >> forward early - you >>> just increase the commercial incentives around trying to show that >>> your application is in that category. >>> >>> The new gTLD process itself already has three categories - >> geographic, >>> community, and other. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bruce >>> >> >> >> >>

1 0

Motion regarding Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Alan Greenberg 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

The proposed motion is attached. As I cannot make motions, I am looking forward to having it done by some kind-hearted soul. Alan

1 0

Draft GNSO Council agenda Thursday, 26 March 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Mar '09

19 Mar '09

Dear All, Attached and in plain text below, please find the GNSO Council Agenda for the meeting on Thursday 26 March 2009. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen .............................................................................................. Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 26 March 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-26mar09.shtml This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time19:00 UTC - see below for local times (12:00 Los Angeles, 15:00 Washington DC, 19:00 London, 20:00 Brussels, 06:00 Melbourne next day) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins. Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members. Item 0: Roll call of Council members (5 mins) Item 1: Update any statements of interest (5 mins) Item 2: Review/amend agenda (5 mins) Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes (5 mins) GNSO Council minutes 29 January 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06435.html Item 4: Motion on Users in the GNSO (deferred from Council meeting on 4 March 2009 (10 mins) ============================================================================================ Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes Whereas: On 11 December 2008, The ICANN Board of Directors requested a report on the future involvement of users in the GNSO, and On 29 January 2009, the GNSO council resolved to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At- Large community to develop a recommendation, and On 20 February, 2009, Alan Greenberg on behalf of the working group convened by ALAC and the GNSO Council sent a report on the Board's request relating to User Involvement in the GNSO. This report can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-alac-to-icann-board-20feb09-en.pdf Resolved: The GNSO Council endorses the report submitted on behalf of the Working Group convened by the ALAC and GNSO Council on User Involvement in the GNSO. Item 5 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) (10 mins) ============================================================================================== Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) Whereas: On 25 June 2008, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on three "new" issues identified by the Transfers Working Group in 2008 addressing (1) the potential exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential 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; Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 19 March 2009; Whereas the IRTP Part A WG has reached consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above; Whereas these recommendations do not include any proposals for changes to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, but do recommend that the GNSO Council: (1) Carry out an assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes; (2) Suggest that future IRTP working groups 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; and, (3) Clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions also apply to a bulk transfer of domain names in only one gTLD. Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes. To include in future IRTP working groups the issue of 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. Recommends that ICANN staff communicate to registries and registrars that the current bulk transfer provisions do apply to cases requiring the transfer of all names in one single gTLD under management of a registrar. Footnote: >From the Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars: 'Transfer of the sponsorship of all the registrations sponsored by one Registrar as the result of (i) acquisition of that Registrar or its assets by another Registrar, or (ii) lack of accreditation of that Registrar or lack of its authorization with the Registry Operator, may be made according to the following procedure: (a) The gaining Registrar must be accredited by ICANN for the Registry TLD and must have in effect a Registry-Registrar Agreement with Registry Operator for the Registry TLD. (b) ICANN must certify in writing to Registry Operator that the transfer would promote the community interest, such as the interest in stability that may be threatened by the actual or imminent business failure of a Registrar. Upon satisfaction of these two conditions, the Registry Operator will make the necessary one-time changes in the Registry database for no charge, for transfers involving 50,000 name registrations or fewer. If the transfer involves registrations of more than 50,000 names, Registry Operator will charge the gaining Registrar a one-time flat fee of US$ 50,000.' Item 6 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items (Council) (10 mins) ====================================================================================== Resolution approved on 4 March 2009: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ Resolved: 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 at its meeting of March 6, 2009; http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#09 Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later than July 31 2009; and Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later than July 31, 2009. Item 7: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP) decision (Alan Greenberg/Drafting Team) (10 mins) ============================================================================================== Proposed Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to PEDNR; Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report; Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP; Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of registrar transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP Part C PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. The charter of the Task Force or Working Group charged with carrying out this PDP should include a mandate to consider both Consensus Policy recommendations as well as recommendations regarding best practices, ICANN compliance obligations and possible RAA changes, all associated with staff recommendations in the Issues Report section 4.2. Specifically, consideration of the following questions: . Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; . Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; . Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; . Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined). . Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter. Item 8: Current Whois policy requirements for IDNs (Council/Liz Gasster) (10 mins) Item 9: New Bylaw discussion - requested by Staff - Staff presentation (10 mins) Item 10: Status Updates (15 mins) ================================= 10 . 1 Board Update http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm 10. 2 ccNSO Liaison update 10. 3 Geographical Region WG update 10. 4 Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) status update http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#07 10. 5 Joint GNSO/ccNSO group to discuss coordination of timing for IDN TLDs (Avri Doria /Chris Disspain) update 10. 6 Policy Items 10. 6. 1. Working Groups 10. 6. 1. 1. Fast Flux 10. 6. 1. 2. Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) 10. 6. 2. Drafting Teams 10. 6. 2.1. Travel Policy Drafting Team - Travel Database for Sydney http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06424.html 10. 6. 2. 2. Response to IDN ccTLD Fast Track 10. 6. 3 GNSO Improvement Work Teams 10. 6. 3. 1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) 10. 6. 3. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT 10. 6. 3. 3. Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Communications coordination work team 10. 6. 3. 4. OSC Constituency operations work team 10. 6. 3. 5. OSC GNSO Council operations work team 10. 7. Restructuring group http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf - deadlines to be met Item 11: AOB ============== (12:00 Los Angeles, 15:00 Washington DC, 19:00 London, 20:00 Brussels, 06:00 Melbourne next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 19:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-7+1DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 15:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 16:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 16:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 19:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 00:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 03:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 03:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 06:00 (Friday 27 March) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft GNSO Council minutes 29 January 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry 17 Mar '09

17 Mar '09

Dear All, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 29 January 2009. If you would like any changes made, please let me know. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Mexico City Briefing Note Published
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Mar '09

16 Mar '09

[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-09mar09-en.htm Mexico City Briefing Note Published 9 March 2009 A briefing note on the Mexico City meeting of 1-6 March 2009 has been published. http://mex.icann.org/briefing-note ICANN's 34th international public meeting was hosted by ICANN, the Mexican Internet Association (AMIPCI), the Network Information Center (NIC) Mexico, and the Internet Society (ISOC) Mexico. The briefing note summarizes key developments at the meeting and outlines next steps and sources of further information for each. The topics included are: New generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Internationalized Domain Names and the IDN Fast Track Amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) The Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC) consultation GNSO Improvements Independent Reviews A summary of Board resolutions The briefing note is an informal summary. The authoritative records of official meetings will be available in their minutes. Further information about the meeting, including presentations and transcripts, is available at http://mex.icann.org/. Information about the next meeting which will be from 21-26 June 2008 in Sydney, Australia can be found at its dedicated website at http://syd.icann.org. Related links: Mexico City briefing note: http://mex.icann.org/briefing-note Mexico City meeting website: http://mex.icann.org/ Sydney meeting website: http://syd.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0