March 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council resolutions 4 March 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 Mar '09

05 Mar '09

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the formal minutes, please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO Open Council meeting in Mexico City on Wednesday, 4 March 2009. Motion 2, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement motion, passed unanimously as the one absentee vote in favour has been recorded. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. WHOIS Motion Proposed by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Tony Holmes, Olga Cavalli, Kristina Rosette 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/ ) 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/ ) 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-report-25… ) 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 ) 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) 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#Whois_st… ). 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-29oct08.p… 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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/ ), 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. Staff is also requested to consider the results obtained from the ALAC on its priorities for studies and include any of studies that, based on the same prioritization, fit in the groups designated in this resolution. Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to GAC representatives once it has been approved. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote: Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre (Registry constituency); Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian inderis (Registrars) Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC). Absent: Edmon Chung (Registry constituency), Ute Decker (IPC). 2. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion =================================================== Motion made by Tim Ruiz Seconded by Kristina Rosette 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; Whereas, 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; and Whereas, The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps. 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; 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. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. 27 Votes in favour Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (Registry constituency) Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) 2 votes each; Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC) one vote each. Absentee ballot: Ute Decker (IPC) one vote in favour. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06402.html Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

absentee vote RAA agreement
by Ute Decker 05 Mar '09

05 Mar '09

* On the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: yellow-4 Greetings... Ute

2 1

ccNSO update
by Olga Cavalli 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Hi, included in this email you can find the text of the recently approved resolution in respect to IDN ccTLDs under fast track. regards. Olga *Resolution of the ccNSO Council in respect to IDN ccTLDs delegated under the Fast Track * *The ccNSO Council resolved: * IDN ccTLDs should be treated similarly to ASCII ccTLDs and so:. *1 On the Relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Managers* 1.1 The entering into of a documented relationship between ICANN and an IDN ccTLD manager should be voluntary and not a requirement for the delegation of the IDN ccTLD. 1.2 Such a documented relationship should be encouraged 1.3 It is in the best interest of IDN ccTLDs managers and the entire DNS community to adhere to all relevant IETF standards (including the IDNA protocol) and the IDN Guidelines and to commit to complying with future IDNA protocol updates. *2 On Financial Contributions to ICANN* 1. Financial contributions should be voluntary and should not be a requirement for the delegation of an IDN ccTLD. 2. As previously stated by ccTLD managers, detailed information from ICANN on the breakdown of the costs involved in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track programme (and other costs ICANN incurs related to ccTLDs) would be welcome and help advance discussions. 3. Concrete proposals on possible financial contribution models would also help to advance discussions. 4. The Council acknowledges and appreciates that work on the information outlined in 2.2 and 2.3. has commenced and looks forward to receiving it as soon as possible.

1 0

Fwd: REVISED: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

FYI >To: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: REVISED: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO >Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ><langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, At-Large Staff ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > >Dear Peter, > >Attached is a slightly revised version of the report I submitted on >20 February 2008. > >The substantive part of the report is unchanged. The changes are >solely to the WG membership and footnotes on page 2: > >- Clarifying that the one WG participant who had not had the >opportunity to indicate support for the report by 20 February 2008 >has now done so. >- Noting that one WG participant on behalf of the ALAC has now filed >an Intent to form a Non-commercial constituency and so can be added >to that category of WG member as well. > >Regards, Alan Greenberg

1 0

RE: [council] Final version of RAA amendment/motion
by Tim Ruiz 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Thought I should point out that the only change from the version that was circulated Sunday afternoon is in the last paragraph of the resolve. The Sunday afternoon version read: Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, 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. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009. It has been changed to: 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. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Final version of RAA amendment/motion From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Date: Tue, March 03, 2009 3:40 pm To: council(a)gnso.icann.org The attached, also copied below, is the final version of the motion many of us have worked on. It reflects all the changes that we've discussed. Not completely sure of the best way to frame it for voting, but would like to suggest that we consider it the only motion on this subject that we vote on tomorrow. Tim ---------------- 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; Whereas, 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; and Whereas, The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps. 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; 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 then July 31; 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. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009.

3 2

e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum: a global perspective
by Denise Michel 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Greetings. The main session of "e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum: a global perspective" scheduled for Wednesday, March 4, 14:00-18:00 in Don-Alberto 2-4 (Main Room), will be scribed, and the transcript and all presentations will be publicly posted at <http://mex.icann.org/node/2653>. Included below and attached in Word is an updated agenda. I know that overlapping meetings have been scheduled and not all interested community members will be able to attend the Forum, but rest assured that all available information will be publicly posted, including the results of the break-out sessions. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development ----------------------------------- e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum: a global perspective Organized by ICANN Staff in Cooperation with the At-Large Summit Wednesday, March 4 14:00-18:00 Hotel Sheraton Centro Historico Don-Alberto 2-4 Conference Room The Forum will provide participants with an opportunity to discuss numerous global activities and issues related to e-Crime and DNS abuse that involve a broad array of international stakeholders. While not all of these issues fall within ICANN's narrow mission, the Forum is intended to facilitate public dialogue and working relationships on e-Crime and DNS abuse among members of the global Internet community, as requested by the ICANN community. Welcome Alejandro Pisanty (former Director, ICANN Board; National University of Mexico) Time: 14:00 – 14:10 Alejandro Pisanty will provide an introduction to the Forum including its format, aims, and objectives. Session 1. The e-Crime Landscape (Time: 14:10 – 15:03) Moderator: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee) (14:10-14:13) Panel: Beau Brendler (Consumer Reports WebWatch Project); Fred Felman (MarkMonitor); and Jeffrey Bedser (Internet Crimes Group) Introduction to E-Crime (20 minutes) (14:13 – 14:33) Beau Brendler will provide an overview of the manner in which e-Crime affects consumers as well as discuss activities that aim to educate the public regarding e-Crime risks. Fred Felman will review recent e-Crime trends, and highlight types of harms to end-users. Sizing and Scoping e-Crime (20 minutes) (14:33-14:53) Jeffrey Bedser will describe the e-Crime ecosystem and explain how organized crime uses the Internet and the DNS to facilitate criminal acts against end-users. Jeffrey will also discuss emerging legal efforts that focus on protecting end-users against Internet-based crime. Jeffrey will use the results of extensive attack traffic, DNS, and domain name data analysis to illustrate that e-Crime is able to exploit resources from virtually any user and provider in the global Internet. He will describe how criminal attack network activity is distinguished from legitimate (production) traffic. Jeffrey will also show the hotspots for bot and malware activity and where domain names are used to abet e-crime are registered. Audience Questions (10 minutes) (14:53-15:03) Session 2. Criminal Attacks and Abuse Response Today (Time: 15:03-16:11) Moderator: Greg Rattray (Chief Internet Security Advisor, ICANN) Time: 15:03 – 15:06 Panel: Rod Rasmussen (Internet Identity); Tim Ruiz (GoDaddy), Greg Aaron (Afilias), Law Enforcement (TBD); Vanda Scartezini (At-Large Advisory Committee); Jeff Neuman (NeuStar); Oscar Robles-Garay (NIC.mx) Case studies in global criminal attacks (20 minutes) (15:06-15:26) Rod Rasmussen will describe the chronology of events leading to the discoveries and cessations of two noteworthy security incidents. He will describe both the parties involved in, and the events leading up to, the disconnection of the McColo hosting provider, and the sustained disruption of Srizbi bot communications with their command and control servers by preventing the automated registrations of botnet domains. Rod will describe the events surrounding the attack against the e-billing company, CheckFree, through its domain names, the immediate effects, related phishing of registrars, and the prospects for future, similar attacks against the financial sector and end-users. Abuse Response Today – (30 minutes) (15:26-15:56) The speakers will describe their respective roles in responding to, and acting upon, criminal complaints where domain names are used to abet criminal activities, and how to protect legitimate end-users from erroneous shut-downs (false positives). A law enforcement expert will describe the role of the private sector in cooperating with law enforcement agencies, and in proactively responding to E-crime so as to protect consumers. Audience Questions (15 minutes) (15:56-16:16:11) Session 3. Role of ICANN Stakeholders and Staff in Responding to e-Crime (45 minutes) Time: 16:11-17:01 Moderator: Lyman Chapin (former Director, ICANN Board) (16:11-16:14) Panel: Jon Nevett (Network Solutions); Garth Bruen (Knujon); Steve Metalitz (Intellectual Property Constituency); David Giza (ICANN Compliance Office); Roelof Meijer (SIDN); Adam Palmer (Public Interest Registry); Rudi Vansnick (ISOC.be); Marc Ottawa (Royal Canadian Mounted Police); Andy Steingruebl (PayPal); Tony Harris (Cabase) (16:14-16:56) The speakers will describe how current ICANN gTLD and ccTLD policies and contractual obligations of registries and registrars help combat E-crime. The role of ICANN’s Compliance Office in reinforcing these efforts, such as in the areas of WHOIS accuracy, and registrar breach notices, will be explained. The speakers will also discuss the efforts among industry groups to develop voluntary guidelines and share data to enhance the private sector’s responses to e-Crime. Audience Questions (15 minutes) (16:56 – 17:01) Next Steps – e-Crime Break-Out Sessions (60 minutes) Time: 17:01 – 18:01 Instructions: Denise Michel, ICANN Vice President, Policy Development The public will have an opportunity to participate in further detailed discussion and exchange of information by joining one of several break-out sessions on specific issues moderated by the individuals identified below: • Law Enforcement and ccTLDs (Marc Moreau and Erick Iriarte Ahon) • Consumer Protection in Existing and New TLDs (Beau Brendler and Holly Raiche, Executive Director, ISOC-AU) • The Role of ICANN (Jon Nevett, Kristina Rosette, and Doug Brent, Chief Operating Officer, ICANN) • e-Crime in Latin America - conducted in Spanish (Vanda Scartezini and Alejandro Pisanty) The moderators of each break-out session will summarize any suggested next steps and recommendations from their respective group during the Public Forum.

4 4

RE: [council] Final version of RAA amendment/motion
by Tim Ruiz 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

Yes, I believe that was the intent, and I don't blieve the NCUC disagrees with that. Bill and Kristina are discussing now. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Final version of RAA amendment/motion From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Wed, March 04, 2009 8:27 am To: "'Alan Greenberg'" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "'William Drake'" <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>, "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> The latest version of the language is preferred by the BC, as the first version could be read as limiting wrt topics of next discussion. I believe our collective intent was to open discussion on any topic within the RAA, not just topics that are subject of current proposed amendments, right? Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:56 AM To: William Drake; Tim Ruiz Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Final version of RAA amendment/motion As does ALAC. Alan At 04/03/2009 07:57 AM, William Drake wrote: Hi Tim, This is news to us. NCUC much prefers the language we agreed on Sunday. Bill On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> wrote: Thought I should point out that the only change from the version that was circulated Sunday afternoon is in the last paragraph of the resolve. The Sunday afternoon version read: Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, 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. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009. It has been changed to: 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. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Final version of RAA amendment/motion From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Date: Tue, March 03, 2009 3:40 pm To: council(a)gnso.icann.org The attached, also copied below, is the final version of the motion many of us have worked on. It reflects all the changes that we've discussed. Not completely sure of the best way to frame it for voting, but would like to suggest that we consider it the only motion on this subject that we vote on tomorrow. Tim ---------------- 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; Whereas, 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; and Whereas, The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps. Resolved: The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd f <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p df> and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6, 2009; 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 then July 31; 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. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009. -- *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj ***********************************************************

1 0

Re: [council] Final version of RAA amendment/motion
by Alan Greenberg 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

As does ALAC. Alan At 04/03/2009 07:57 AM, William Drake wrote: >Hi Tim, > >This is news to us. NCUC much prefers the language we agreed on Sunday. > >Bill > > > >On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tim Ruiz ><<mailto:tim@godaddy.com>tim(a)godaddy.com> wrote: > >Thought I should point out that the only change from the version that >was circulated Sunday afternoon is in the last paragraph of the resolve. > >The Sunday afternoon version read: > >Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, 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. The Drafting Team should >endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later >then July 31, 2009. > >It has been changed to: > >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. >The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council >and >ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009. > > >Tim > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: [council] Final version of RAA amendment/motion >From: "Tim Ruiz" <<mailto:tim@godaddy.com>tim(a)godaddy.com> >Date: Tue, March 03, 2009 3:40 pm >To: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org > >The attached, also copied below, is the final version of the motion many >of us have worked on. It reflects all the changes that we've discussed. >Not completely sure of the best way to frame it for voting, but would >like to suggest that we consider it the only motion on this subject that >we vote on tomorrow. > >Tim > >---------------- >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; > >Whereas, 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; and > >Whereas, > >The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter >identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link >to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; > >The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward >with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and > >The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing >to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps. > >Resolved: > >The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in ><http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…>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; > >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 then July >31; 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. >The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council >and >ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009. > > > > > > > > >-- >*********************************************************** >William J. Drake >Senior Associate >Centre for International Governance >Graduate Institute for International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland >william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch >New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, ><http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj>http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj >***********************************************************

2 1

Motions for Wednesday meeting
by Avri Doria 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

hi, I have noticed that only one of the motions for tomorrow's meeting has been seconded so far: 1. Tim's Alternate RAA Motion 2. Avri's motion endorsing the report from the Joint WG on User participation in the GNSO 3. Chuck's motion on Whois studies. While I am willing to call for seconds during the Wednesday meeting, getting them in before the meeting would be good if possible. Thanks a.

1 0

Final version of RAA amendment/motion
by Tim Ruiz 04 Mar '09

04 Mar '09

The attached, also copied below, is the final version of the motion many of us have worked on. It reflects all the changes that we've discussed. Not completely sure of the best way to frame it for voting, but would like to suggest that we consider it the only motion on this subject that we vote on tomorrow. Tim ---------------- 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; Whereas, 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; and Whereas, The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps. 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; 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 then July 31; 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. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009.

2 1