April 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda, Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 14:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009

Dear Councillors, Attached and in plain text below, please find the proposed agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 14:00 UTC. Please note the date and time and please make every effort to attend as quorum is required to conduct the business of the Council. This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time 14:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, 00:00 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 Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Review/amend agenda Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes (Items 1-3 15 mins.) GNSO Council minutes 16 April 2009 Item 4: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP) decision (deferred from previous meeting) (20 mins.) GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery See motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?07_may_motions Item 5: GAC Position Paper on Geographic Names (20 mins.) GAC Response to Geographic Terms Protection Item 6: Whois service requirements motion (10 mins.) See motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?07_may_motions Item 7: Preparation for the Sydney meetings (10 mins.) Item 8: Status Updates (20 mins) 8. 1 Board Update Board Agenda 23 April 2009 8. 2 ccNSO Liaison update 8. 3 Geographical Region WG update 8. 4 Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) status update Draft Report - Introduction: Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) Other references: WIKI for Overarching Issues discussions: https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?new_gtld_overarc… New gTLD Page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm 8. 5 Joint GNSO/ccNSO group to discuss coordination of timing for IDN TLDs (Avri Doria /Chris Disspain) update 8. 6 Policy Items 8. 6. 1. Working Groups 8. 6. 1. 1. Fast Flux 8. 6. 1. 2. Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) 8. 6. 2. Drafting Teams 8. 6. 2. 1. Travel Policy Drafting Team - Travel Database for Sydney 8. 6. 2. 2. IDN gTLD Fast Track 8. 6. 3 GNSO Improvement Work Teams 8. 6. 3. 1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) 8. 6. 3. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT 8. 6. 3. 3. Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Communications coordination work team 8. 6. 3. 4. OSC Constituency operations work team 8. 6. 3. 5. OSC GNSO Council operations work team 8. 7. Restructuring group http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf 8. 7. 1. Status of By-Law discussions Item 9: AOB (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 1600 Brussels, 00:00 Melbourne next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-7+1DST 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 15:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Melbourne, Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 00:00 (Friday) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com 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

Pending additions to ICANN glossary -- update on Council request from Mexico City
by Liz Gasster April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009

All, During our after-action meeting in Mexico City, several of you suggested that we update the ICANN glossary to add some basic terms that we refer to frequently but that are missing currently from that compendium http://www.icann.org/en/general/glossary.htm . Definitions have been developed for the terms that were identified by Council members (copied below for your reference, note also an updated definition of WHOIS has been prepared). These definitions are currently being translated and they will be added to the glossary when the translations are complete. ICANN's Corporate Affairs department will be updating the glossary more broadly in the upcoming weeks. We will also be adding a link to the glossary from the GNSO home page, http://gnso.icann.org/ . This was also suggested in the Mexico meeting. Thanks, Liz PDP - Policy Development Process A set of formal steps, as defined in the ICANN bylaws, to guide the initiation, internal and external review, timing and approval of policies needed to coordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers. Operations Steering Committee The Operations Steering Committee (OSC) coordinates, recommends and reviews changes to certain operational activities of the GNSO and its constituencies with a view to efficient outcomes. These operational activity areas cover GNSO operations, Stakeholder Group and Constituency operations, and communications with GNSO and between GNSO and other ICANN structures. Policy Process Steering Committee The Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) reviews and recommends processes used within the GNSO for developing policy, including the use of Working Groups, and recommending any changes. Registry Services Evaluation Process The Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) is ICANN's process for evaluating proposed gTLD registry services or contractual modifications for security, stability or competition issues. Further information on RSEP is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/. WHOIS WHOIS (pronounced "who is"; not an acronym) An Internet protocol that is used to query databases to obtain information about the registration of a domain name (or IP address). The WHOIS protocol was originally specified in RFC 954 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc954.txt>, published in 1985. The current specification is documented in RFC 3912 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3912.txt>. ICANN's gTLD agreements require registries and registrars to offer an interactive web page and a port 43 WHOIS service providing free public access to data on registered names. Such data is commonly referred to as "WHOIS data," and includes elements such as the domain registration creation and expiration dates, nameservers, and contact information for the registrant and designated administrative and technical contacts. WHOIS services are typically used to identify domain holders for business purposes and to identify parties who are able to correct technical problems associated with the registered domain.

5 10

Wiki links on the GNSO home page
by Glen de Saint Géry April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009

Dear All, Please note that there are direct links to all the current Wikis on the left navigation bar on page: http://gnso.icann.org/ Please note that none of the OSC Work Teams have sub-team wiki pages. There are, however, links from the main pages to documents appearing on separate wiki pages. Hope that this makes your searching easier. Let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Social Schedule for ICANN Sydney
by Adrian Kinderis April 29, 2009

April 29, 2009

All, In the interest of helping you schedule your time I thought I would detail a few agenda items (of the Social variety) for the upcoming ICANN Meeting in Sydney. You should all visit http://syd.icann.org regularly because we/ ICANN staff are actively updating it! Monday night is Restaurant Night! - There will be a welcome cocktail function which finishes early enough to get out and eat at some of Sydney's finest restaurants - We will be putting up a list of excellent restaurants to get out and try on the website shortly! Wednesday night is the Gala Event! - This is going to be fun and a few surprises! You won't want to miss out! The view is spectacular! - There will also be an official After Party for those that want to kick on! - We are also looking for sponsors so let me know if you are interested in being associated with this event! As I said, keep looking back at the ICANN Sydney site regularly for updates. For those interested in exploring this amazing country there will shortly be a form placed on the website which puts you in touch the ICANN Preferred travel agent! Let me know if I can help you with anything or if you have any questions! Regards, Adrian Kinderis AusRegistry International (Host Committee member for ICANN Sydney meeting)

1 0

ICANN website
by Adrian Kinderis April 29, 2009

April 29, 2009

Has anyone else noticed how slowly the ICANN website loads lately? I think it all started happening once the video content was uploaded (but this could just be coincidence). If this is common to others would staff care to comment? Adrian Kinderis

1 0

TLD Operational concerns -- A Perfect example...
by Terry L Davis, P.E. April 28, 2009

April 28, 2009

All Earlier this year some of you all wondered what my operational concerns were with simultaneous starting of the new TLD and IDNs. This is just too perfect an example not to share! If you try, to bring up www.isoc.org right now. Some of you all will get "cannot find web server"! I was on a call with ISOC this morning on some other issues. At the end of the call, I asked them why their website was down. It wasn't actually down and using the IP address instead of the URL, it worked fine (which won't even be doable by anyone other than a network engineer in IPv6). But it didn't resolve on at least AT&T and Comcast from Seattle. They just emailed back with the cause. They switched registrars today and had only a partial transfer occur to the TLDs. TLD operations up to now have as much been networked via "personal contacts" as by technology since there were only a dozen or so TLD operators globally. Our technology will need to significantly improve to insure coordination and security between what will be a growing number of TLD and IDN-TLD operators; and IDN alone adds tremendously to the DNS technical complexity. Anyway good food for discussions over a late night drink in Sydney. Take care Terry

2 4

Release of DNSO restricted funds
by Olga Cavalli April 27, 2009

April 27, 2009

Hi, attached is an email from Kevin Wilson informing us that in order to release the DNSO funds to support the travel costs for members of the six GNSO constituencies, he needs a clear request from each constituency of the exact amount and payment instructions (e.g., name of payee, account #’s, currency, date of transfer). For further details please see the email copied below. Best regards Olga ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson(a)icann.org> Date: 2009/4/26 Subject: [gnso-travel-dt] Release of DNSO restricted funds To: "gnso-travel-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-travel-dt(a)icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Dear GNSO Travel Team: I understand that the GNSO approved the release of the $19,963.79 DNSO restricted funds to support the travel costs for members of the six GNSO constituencies. In order to execute the release of these funds, I will need a clear request from each constituency of the exact amount and payment instructions (e.g., name of payee, account #’s, currency, date of transfer). In the request please include a reference to the GNSO resolution (copied below for your reference) and copy the other contituencies. I assume I will be getting 6 requests for US$ 3,3327.30. (19,964.79/6). Thank you Kevin Wilson CFO ICANN * * *Whereas:* * * *At its meeting of September 25, 2008 the GNSO Council created the Travel Drafting Team (TDT) to work on proposals to optimize the allocation and the management of Travel Funding for the GNSO Constituencies.* * * *At a meeting held during the Mexico ICANN meeting in March 2009 between the TDT and members of ICANN staff, the TDT requested that all GNSO Constituencies receive Funding Slots for each of their elected Councillors at each one of the three yearly international ICANN meetings, with the understanding that it would then be up to each Constituency to allocate these slots according to their own internal processes.* * * *That request stemmed in part from the recognition of the significant, and ever increasing work loads, that GNSO Councillors face. Work which they carry out as unpaid volunteers.* * * *Since that meeting it has been identified that an amount of funds left over from the DNSO are available for use should the Council wish to provide additional Travel Funding to those GNSO Constituencies that no longer have enough credits left for their three slots for the final meeting of the fiscal year 2008, in Sydney.* * * *The funds identified are in the amount of 19,963.79 USD.* * * *Resolved:* * * *That the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express purpose of providing additional Travel Funding for those persons nominated by each Constituency as recipients to be of said Travel Support.* * * * *

5 7

Letter from Janis Karklin to Paul Twomey
by Avri Doria April 25, 2009

April 25, 2009

Hi, In case everyone does not track the correspondence. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf a.

2 1

Draft IRT report
by Avri Doria April 25, 2009

April 25, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24apr09-en.htm http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-draft-report-trademark-protect…

1 0

Update on RAA
by Bruce Tonkin April 23, 2009

April 23, 2009

Hello All, There was a long discussion regarding the RAA amendments at the Board meeting today. Personally I abstained from the discussion as I am employed by a registrar, and the registrar would be subject to the registrar accreditation agreement. It was noted that the Public Comment period ended on 6 April 2009 and ICANN Staff provided a summary to the Board prior to the Board Meeting. In addition, ICANN had recent discussions with the US Department of Commerce, following up on concerns originally raised in the DOC's 1 August 2008 letter. Based upon the board discussion, it was determined that staff should prepare a letter to the DOC, confirming the benefits of the new RAA, prior to the Board's final approval. The board expects to act on the amendments during its next board meeting in May 2009. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] ICANN Board meeting agenda - 23 April 2009
by Bruce Tonkin April 22, 2009

April 22, 2009

Hello All, I have been contacted by several people in the GNSO community regarding the RAA accreditation agenda item. I have conveyed the concerns to the Board list, and will provide an update later today. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 5:25 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board meeting agenda - 23 April 2009 To strengthen Kristina's remarks, let me add that the RAA is on the agenda as an "informational item". A decision on it was deferred at the Mexico City Board meeting, pending a 30 day comment period. The period is now over and the comments (according to the staff summary) supported adoption "the sooner the better". The Board itself in Mexico committed "to act on approval of the amendments at the earliest opportunity" following this public comment period. The longer we wait, the fewer registrars will be covered automatically and ICANN will have to pay them to adopt the new RAA. Alan At 22/04/2009 09:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: Thanks, Bruce. I see that the RAA Amendments aren't an agenda item. Given that the public comment period closed on 6 April and the majority of comments supported the amendments and the Board's prompt action on them, do you know why there's no agenda item (and, if not, who may be able to answer that question)? K -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:14 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board meeting agenda - 23 April 2009 From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-23apr09.htm A. Consent Agenda ================= Approval of Minutes - 3 February 2009 and 12 February 2009 Approval of Board Audit Committee's Recommendation for Engagement of Auditors for FY09-10 Approval of Charter of Community-Wide Working Group to Review The Structure of ICANN's Present Geographic Regions Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation regarding Ombudsman Framework Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for Posting of the Revised Conflict of Interest Policy for Public Comment Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation of Procedures for Board Nominations Approval of Redelegation of .NG Approval of Phased Allocation Process for Single & Two-Character Domain Names in .BIZ, including proposed Contract Amendment Approval of Posting for Public Comment the Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency Approval of Staff to Follow the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries B. Regular Agenda ================= 1. GNSO Improvements a Implementation Efforts b GNSO Council Restructuring 2 New gTLD Implementation Updates a Implementation Recommendation Team b Geographical Names c Timeline 3. Approval of Seoul Budget - October 2009 Meeting Location 4. Agenda for Upcoming Board Retreat 5. Other Business 6. Board Executive Session C. Informational Agenda ======================== 1. Registrar Accreditation Agreement Update 2. .PRO Registry Agreement Renewal 3. IDNccTLD Update 4. Update on FY10 Operational Planning & Budget Process 5. Reports from Board Committees a Audit Committee - 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report b Board Governance Committee - 11 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes c Finance Committee - 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report d IANA Committee - 28 January 2009 and 16 February 2009 Minutes and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Report e Public Participation Committee - 17 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes f Risk Committee - 27 January 2009 and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Reports g Structural Improvements Committee - 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report

1 0

RE: [council] ICANN Board meeting agenda - 23 April 2009
by Alan Greenberg April 22, 2009

April 22, 2009

To strengthen Kristina's remarks, let me add that the RAA is on the agenda as an "informational item". A decision on it was deferred at the Mexico City Board meeting, pending a 30 day comment period. The period is now over and the comments (according to the staff summary) supported adoption "the sooner the better". The Board itself in Mexico committed "to act on approval of the amendments at the earliest opportunity" following this public comment period. The longer we wait, the fewer registrars will be covered automatically and ICANN will have to pay them to adopt the new RAA. Alan At 22/04/2009 09:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: >Thanks, Bruce. > >I see that the RAA Amendments aren't an agenda item. Given that the >public comment period closed on 6 April and the majority of comments >supported the amendments and the Board's prompt action on them, do you >know why there's no agenda item (and, if not, who may be able to answer >that question)? > >K > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin >Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:14 AM >To: Council GNSO >Subject: [council] ICANN Board meeting agenda - 23 April 2009 > > >From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-23apr09.htm > >A. Consent Agenda >================= > >Approval of Minutes - 3 February 2009 and 12 February 2009 Approval of >Board Audit Committee's Recommendation for Engagement of Auditors for >FY09-10 Approval of Charter of Community-Wide Working Group to Review >The Structure of ICANN's Present Geographic Regions Approval of Board >Governance Committee's Recommendation regarding Ombudsman Framework >Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for Posting of >the Revised Conflict of Interest Policy for Public Comment Approval of >Board Governance Committee's Recommendation of Procedures for Board >Nominations Approval of Redelegation of .NG Approval of Phased >Allocation Process for Single & Two-Character Domain Names in .BIZ, >including proposed Contract Amendment Approval of Posting for Public >Comment the Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency >Approval of Staff to Follow the Global Policy Proposal for the >Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries > > >B. Regular Agenda >================= > >1. GNSO Improvements > > a Implementation Efforts > > b GNSO Council Restructuring > >2 New gTLD Implementation Updates > > a Implementation Recommendation Team > > b Geographical Names > > c Timeline > >3. Approval of Seoul Budget - October 2009 Meeting Location > >4. Agenda for Upcoming Board Retreat > >5. Other Business > >6. Board Executive Session > > >C. Informational Agenda >======================== > >1. Registrar Accreditation Agreement Update > >2. .PRO Registry Agreement Renewal > >3. IDNccTLD Update > >4. Update on FY10 Operational Planning & Budget Process > >5. Reports from Board Committees > > a Audit Committee - 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report > > b Board Governance Committee - 11 February 2009 and 28 February >2009 Minutes > > c Finance Committee - 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February >2009 Preliminary Report > > d IANA Committee - 28 January 2009 and 16 February 2009 Minutes >and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Report > > e Public Participation Committee - 17 February 2009 and 28 >February 2009 Minutes > > f Risk Committee - 27 January 2009 and 1 March 2009 Preliminary >Reports > > g Structural Improvements Committee - 10 February 2009 Minutes >and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report

2 1

ICANN Board meeting agenda - 23 April 2009
by Bruce Tonkin April 22, 2009

April 22, 2009

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-23apr09.htm A. Consent Agenda ================= Approval of Minutes - 3 February 2009 and 12 February 2009 Approval of Board Audit Committee's Recommendation for Engagement of Auditors for FY09-10 Approval of Charter of Community-Wide Working Group to Review The Structure of ICANN's Present Geographic Regions Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation regarding Ombudsman Framework Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for Posting of the Revised Conflict of Interest Policy for Public Comment Approval of Board Governance Committee's Recommendation of Procedures for Board Nominations Approval of Redelegation of .NG Approval of Phased Allocation Process for Single & Two-Character Domain Names in .BIZ, including proposed Contract Amendment Approval of Posting for Public Comment the Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency Approval of Staff to Follow the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries B. Regular Agenda ================= 1. GNSO Improvements a Implementation Efforts b GNSO Council Restructuring 2 New gTLD Implementation Updates a Implementation Recommendation Team b Geographical Names c Timeline 3. Approval of Seoul Budget - October 2009 Meeting Location 4. Agenda for Upcoming Board Retreat 5. Other Business 6. Board Executive Session C. Informational Agenda ======================== 1. Registrar Accreditation Agreement Update 2. .PRO Registry Agreement Renewal 3. IDNccTLD Update 4. Update on FY10 Operational Planning & Budget Process 5. Reports from Board Committees a Audit Committee - 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report b Board Governance Committee - 11 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes c Finance Committee - 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report d IANA Committee - 28 January 2009 and 16 February 2009 Minutes and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Report e Public Participation Committee - 17 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes f Risk Committee - 27 January 2009 and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Reports g Structural Improvements Committee - 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report

2 1

Formal Petition and Charter of Proposed IDNgTLD Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth April 22, 2009

April 22, 2009

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter package of the proposed new IDNgTLD Constituency submitted formally this past weekend by Dr. S. Subbiah of i-DNS.net, Inc. This is now the third formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the community and Board's review. I will also be sending copies of the submission package to the GNSO Constituencies list as an FYI. The document will also be posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm . Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

3 10

RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
by Tim Ruiz April 21, 2009

April 21, 2009

Thought we should start trying to capture suggested changes in the document. The attached is a red line with the following suggested changes: X.3.1 Deleted the restrictive language about all Constituencies being allocated a Council seat. X.3.3 Modified with a compromise to address Avri's concern. Just a suggestion, not necessarily supported by the RrC yet. X.3.6 Deleted the unnecessary and restrictive language regarding Board seat selections. X.3.8 No changes, but something we need to discuss further. There may be advantages to allowing the Nominating Committee to make this assignment based on criteria provided by the Council as a whole (for the Council level NCA) and by criteria provided by each of the houses for their NCA (but final criteria approved by the Council as a whole). That said, that is just a personal observation for consideration, not an RrC position. X.5.1 Modified to be consistent with reality, and the changes made to X.3.1. XX.5.4 Modifed the timeline for the new Council to be as soon as practical after Sydney, but no later than the commencement of the meeting in October. Again, just a suggestion but this seems to be more realistic. XX.5.5 Modified to be consistent with the changes in X.3.1 and X.5.1. XX.5.11 Modified to be consistent with the changes to XX.5.4. The voting thresholds will be in place when the new Council is seated, whenever that may be. XX.5.12 Modified to be consistent with the changes to XX.5.4. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 3:16 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> hi, A few question/comments on first reading. -- X3.1 > Each Stakeholder Group may select representatives according to its > Charter procedures subject to the provision that each Board-recognized > Constituency shall be allocated a minimum of one seat on the GNSO > Council. I question whether this is indeed in keeping with the intent of the Board mandated changes as I thought they intended to break the direct connection between constituencies and council seats. X3.3 I think that this would possibly stifle an outside voice in one of the houses. I think that condition C should apply no matter what house a NCA happens to be in. If the aggrieved house cannot make its case to the entire council then perhaps its grievance is not as 'for cause' as they believe. X3.6 I thought that this was still an open issue waiting board consideration. As I described in the original report, I still believe that this will lessen the legitimacy of the board member vis a vis the other members, as this person would not have been elected by an SO but only by part of an SO. > x3.8 > and one voting member appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee this read as if the Nomcom is going to determine which NCA sits where. I would recommend removing removing the line from each of the paragraphs and inserting: c. One of the council members appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee will be serve as a voting member of each house the way this is done would then be put in the Operating rules x4.1 As mentioned above I think the last paragraph is not in keeping with the Board's intent to separate seating on the council from constituency existence. If we do this, I believe we have negated one of the main advantages to be gained from the separation of constituency from stakeholder group. thanks a.

5 10

Adrian Kinderis - Updated Statement of Interest
by Adrian Kinderis April 21, 2009

April 21, 2009

All, Please see my updated Statement of Interest for your information. Adrian Kinderis - Statement of Interest I am Chief Executive Officer of AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd a company based in Melbourne, Australia and an ICANN accredited Registrar and member of the Registrar Constituency. The AusRegistry Group of companies includes; - AusRegistry Pty Ltd which is o the Registry Services provider for all second level .au domain names - AusRegistry International Pty Ltd which is o a Registry Consultancy Service o a Registry Software and infrastructure provider for ccTLD's (including IDN ccTLD's) o a Registry Software and infrastructure provider around new gTLD's (including IDN gTLD's) o AusRegistry International currently has no plans to apply for any new gTLD's as a gTLD applicant (In other words there is no real change to our underlying business model - of providing technology services for Domain Name Registries and Registration) I hold the position of Director in all companies above. None of the companies within the AusRegistry Group are affiliated with any current gTLD Registry operator with the exception of AusRegistry Pty Ltd of which Afilias has a minority shareholding. I am not in possession of any gTLD Registry proprietary or sensitive information, nor have I ever been. I am not an officer, director, consultant, or employee of any other member of this Constituency or any other ICANN Constituency. End Statement of Interest Thanks, Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry International Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com<http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

1 0

Resolutions passed by the GNSO Council 16 April, Voting Results
by Glen de Saint Géry April 21, 2009

April 21, 2009

Dear Councilors, The final results on the motions below at the close of the voting period, Sunday 19 April at 16:10 UTC are as follows: 1. Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) 24 Votes in favour. 2. Next round of IRTP issues to address 24 Votes in favour. (See below for details) Councilors noted as absent: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Adrian Kinderis, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung. Completed ballots due NLT 16:10 UTC, Sunday, 19 April 2009. (09:10 PDT, 12:10 EDT, 13:10 Rio de Janeiro, 17:10 London, 18:10 CEST, 22:10 Karachi, 00:10 Hong Kong, 02:10 Melbourne Monday 20 April 2009) .............................................................................................. MOTION 1 Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) Motion by: Mike Rodenbaugh Seconded by: Chuck Gomes 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.' In favour: 24 votes Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each) Absentee ballots received from Greg Ruth, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Souza, Ute Decker (one vote each) Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each) 2 councillors did not cast votes counting for 3 votes One vote was received after the vote closed. One councilor did not vote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION 2 Next round of IRTP issues to address Made by Tim Ruiz Seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh WHEREAS, The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, A GNSO group of volunteers assigned five PDP groupings to 19 identified IRTP issues, based on a previously developed prioritized issues list, Three additional issues were added to IRTP C based on recommendations from the IRTP Denial Definitions WG and the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, The IRTP Part A WG has recommended combining the issues outlined under PDP B and some of the issues outlined under PDP C into one PDP B in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, The GNSO Council retains the option to address the issues outlined below in one PDP or two separate PDPs following the completion of the issues report, RESOLVED, Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council requests the creation of an issues report on the following issues: a) Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) (Issue #2) b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar. (Issue #7) c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. (Issue #9) d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied). (Issue #5) e) Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. (Recommendation from the IRTP Denials WG) (Note: The issue numbers included above refer to the original numbering in the Transfers Working Group list. Issues a to c form the original PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C.) Notwithstanding section 2 of Annex A of the Bylaws, and in recognition of Staff's current workload, Council requests that Staff complete the issues report and delivers it to the Council by 16 May or reports on its progress by that date with a target date for completion. In favour: 24 votes. Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each) Absentee ballots received from Greg Ruth, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Souza, Ute Decker (one vote each) Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each) 2 councillors did not cast votes counting for 3 votes One vote was received after the vote closed. One councilor did not vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: TWO absentee ballots - please vote and return ballots
by Jordi Iparraguirre April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

En/na Glen de Saint Géry ha escrit: > * On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: > * [X] Yes > * [ ] No > * [ ] Abstain > * Password: white-9 > > * On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: > * [X] Yes > * [ ] No > * [ ] Abstain > * Password: white-9 --- Jordi Iparraguirre Fundació puntCAT www.domini.cat

2 1

Motion 2
by Rosette, Kristina April 19, 2009

April 19, 2009

* On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: mauve-3

1 0

IRTP Part A PDP Vote
by Rosette, Kristina April 19, 2009

April 19, 2009

* On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: * [X ] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: mauve-3

1 0

CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS for RAA Drafting Team
by Glen de Saint Géry April 19, 2009

April 19, 2009

Dear All, In response to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items the Council formed a drafting team to recommend how to proceed on the two tasks: 1) how to go about drafting a charter of registrant rights; 2) how to 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 (DT) will have 30 days from Board approval. The mailing list address is Gnso-raa-dt(a)icann.org And the public archives are http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-dt/ Please let the GNSO Secretariat know if you would like to be subscribed to the 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

6 7

Carlos Souza - Absent voting II
by Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza April 18, 2009

April 18, 2009

* On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: green-7

1 0

Carlos Souza - Absent voting I
by Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza April 18, 2009

April 18, 2009

* On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: green-7

1 0

Re: [council] CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS for RAA Drafting Team
by Alan Greenberg April 18, 2009

April 18, 2009

This note is a bit confusing partially because it uses the term "drafting team" in two different contexts. My understanding is that the DT being formed here is supposed to report back in about 2 weeks, in time for the next Council meeting. One of the tasks is to provide guidance on how to form a group (referred to as a DT here, but I do not recall specifying that) for further RAA amendments. The reference to 30 days is to how long Council and ALAC have to put in place the process. Is that correct?? Alan At 16/04/2009 04:57 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: >Dear All, > >In response to the Registrar Accreditation >Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items the Council >formed a drafting team to recommend how to proceed on the two tasks: >1) how to go about drafting a charter of registrant rights; >2) how to 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 (DT) will have 30 days from Board approval. > >The mailing list address is >Gnso-raa-dt(a)icann.org >And the public archives are >http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-dt/ > >Please let the GNSO Secretariat know if you >would like to be subscribed to the 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

2 1

Intended friendly amendment to the PEDNR motion
by Tim Ruiz April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Avri and Allan, The intended friendly amendment to PEDNR I am asking for is to replace the first paragraph of the RESOLVE section to the following: "to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group: (i) that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; (ii) that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and (iii) that it should specifically consider the following questions:" Reason: We just approved a set of amendments to the RAA and we have a group forming to discuss further changes to the RAA. For the RrC, it seems onerous to include the potential for RAA changs in every PDP that gets initiated and that's what the original motion portends. Item (ii) in the above amendmended paragraph uses language straight out of the recommendations in the Issues report. Thanks for considering it. Tim

2 1