April 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council absentee ballot 2 - Ute Decker
by Ute Decker (LCA) April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

* On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: pink-2

1 0

GNSO Council absentee ballot I - Ute Decker
by Ute Decker (LCA) April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

* On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: pink-2

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Not in the terms of the document that is to be created as a result of the first part of the motion. Alan At 17/04/2009 10:11 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Would the alternative term 'statement of work (SoW)' be a better choice >than 'charter'? > >Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard > > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:02 AM > > To: 'GNSO Council' > > Subject: [council] RAA Drafting Team > > > > > > And while on Charters - we may be suffering from the US and > > UK being "two nations divided by a common language" syndrome. > > > > Charter means to my OED "a grant of rights by the sovereign > > or other body". > > Another on-line definition follows. > > Philip > > ---------------------- > > > > Charter > > noun > > > > a franchise or written grant of specified rights made > > by a government or ruler to a person, corporation, etc. > > a document setting forth the aims and principles of a > > united group, as of nations > > the constitution of a city, setting forth its > > governmental organization and powers > > > > OR > > a document by which a society authorizes the > > organization of a local chapter or lodge > > a special privilege or exemption > > an instrument, esp. a deed > > > > Etymology: ME chartre < OFr < L chartula, dim. of charta: see > > card <http://www.yourdictionary.com/card> > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
by Tim Ruiz April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Right. We fully understand that the Registrant Rights/Responsibilities Charter is a dynamic document. I think we can get to an initial postable version *relatively* quick. As discussions continue and more contentious issues are resolved it can be updated as necessary. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 9:06 am To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I fully support this process as now more clearly stated. I just don't want to set unreasonable expectations about what will be in the charter at day one, from what we hope to build in the longer term process. If I understood the motion, it called upon us to deliver a draft charter by July 31, AND a methodology/plan for going forward with the longer term process, also by that same date. Alan At 17/04/2009 09:52 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >I the Charter as referenced in 3.15 could be the work product or >deliverable of Philip's item 1. Of course, registrars would work closely >with the user community in finalizing that. But since the further >discussions on RAA amendments is also on our plate, Philip's 2-4 makes >sense. With sufficient resources both could be pursued in tandem. But if >serially works better that's fine too. > >Tim > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] RAA Drafting Team >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 8:36 am >To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >I need to leave for the day in a few minutes, so this will be brief. I >could likely support an initiative like this. But I thought that we were >implementing what was referred to in the new RAA 3.15: > >3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that >ICANN has >published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and >responsibilities, and the >content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, >Registrar shall >provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain >name registration >or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as >clearly as its links >to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN >Consensus Policies. > >This is far less ambitious than what Philip has described. Also, his >point 2 may create a set of expectations (that is, asking users for >everything that they would like to see in the RAA to satisfy them) that >we will not likely meet in the creation of a Charter (and I agree with >Bill that the name needs to stay). > >Of course, the more we can get into this charter, the more pleased I and >ALAC will be. > >I agree that it is important to quickly come to an agreement on the >scope of what we are doing under the "charter" section of the motion >passed by Council, and what really belongs in the "future RAA >amendments" section. > >Alan > > >At 17/04/2009 04:32 AM, you wrote: > > Further to my comments on the call yesterday allow me to clarify and >make a proposal that >may save us all a lot of time. > >Background >The BC supports a consideration of further RAA changes. > >Question >What is the best way to do this ? > >Proposal >1. First, do fact finding and create a list of EXISTING registrants' >rights including (and >separating out) voluntary best practice (mostly a Registrars exercise). >2. Create a second list of ADDITIONAL registrants' rights that >registrants want (mostly a >Users exercise). >3. Create a group to study the two lists and determine which of these >additional rights and >voluntary best practice CAN be implemented with new RAA changes (a joint >users / suppliers >exercise) ie POSSIBLE even if some opinions say UNDESIRABLE. >4. Then, NEGOTIATE on which of these additional rights will go forward >to be implemented by >RAA changes. > >That may be in the minds of those that drafted the RAA motion but as I >said on the call, and >from what I heard on the call, I detected a confusion in approach. >The key is to avoid negotiating too early or arguing over the content of >a "charter of >rights." >As said on the call I would strongly recommend changing the terminology. > > >Philip

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Tim, I fully support this process as now more clearly stated. I just don't want to set unreasonable expectations about what will be in the charter at day one, from what we hope to build in the longer term process. If I understood the motion, it called upon us to deliver a draft charter by July 31, AND a methodology/plan for going forward with the longer term process, also by that same date. Alan At 17/04/2009 09:52 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >I the Charter as referenced in 3.15 could be the work product or >deliverable of Philip's item 1. Of course, registrars would work closely >with the user community in finalizing that. But since the further >discussions on RAA amendments is also on our plate, Philip's 2-4 makes >sense. With sufficient resources both could be pursued in tandem. But if >serially works better that's fine too. > >Tim > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] RAA Drafting Team >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 8:36 am >To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >I need to leave for the day in a few minutes, so this will be brief. I >could likely support an initiative like this. But I thought that we were >implementing what was referred to in the new RAA 3.15: > >3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that >ICANN has >published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and >responsibilities, and the >content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, >Registrar shall >provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain >name registration >or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as >clearly as its links >to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN >Consensus Policies. > >This is far less ambitious than what Philip has described. Also, his >point 2 may create a set of expectations (that is, asking users for >everything that they would like to see in the RAA to satisfy them) that >we will not likely meet in the creation of a Charter (and I agree with >Bill that the name needs to stay). > >Of course, the more we can get into this charter, the more pleased I and >ALAC will be. > >I agree that it is important to quickly come to an agreement on the >scope of what we are doing under the "charter" section of the motion >passed by Council, and what really belongs in the "future RAA >amendments" section. > >Alan > > >At 17/04/2009 04:32 AM, you wrote: > > Further to my comments on the call yesterday allow me to clarify and >make a proposal that >may save us all a lot of time. > >Background >The BC supports a consideration of further RAA changes. > >Question >What is the best way to do this ? > >Proposal >1. First, do fact finding and create a list of EXISTING registrants' >rights including (and >separating out) voluntary best practice (mostly a Registrars exercise). >2. Create a second list of ADDITIONAL registrants' rights that >registrants want (mostly a >Users exercise). >3. Create a group to study the two lists and determine which of these >additional rights and >voluntary best practice CAN be implemented with new RAA changes (a joint >users / suppliers >exercise) ie POSSIBLE even if some opinions say UNDESIRABLE. >4. Then, NEGOTIATE on which of these additional rights will go forward >to be implemented by >RAA changes. > >That may be in the minds of those that drafted the RAA motion but as I >said on the call, and >from what I heard on the call, I detected a confusion in approach. >The key is to avoid negotiating too early or arguing over the content of >a "charter of >rights." >As said on the call I would strongly recommend changing the terminology. > > >Philip

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
by Tim Ruiz April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Alan, I the Charter as referenced in 3.15 could be the work product or deliverable of Philip's item 1. Of course, registrars would work closely with the user community in finalizing that. But since the further discussions on RAA amendments is also on our plate, Philip's 2-4 makes sense. With sufficient resources both could be pursued in tandem. But if serially works better that's fine too. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] RAA Drafting Team From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 8:36 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I need to leave for the day in a few minutes, so this will be brief. I could likely support an initiative like this. But I thought that we were implementing what was referred to in the new RAA 3.15: 3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that ICANN has published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities, and the content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies. This is far less ambitious than what Philip has described. Also, his point 2 may create a set of expectations (that is, asking users for everything that they would like to see in the RAA to satisfy them) that we will not likely meet in the creation of a Charter (and I agree with Bill that the name needs to stay). Of course, the more we can get into this charter, the more pleased I and ALAC will be. I agree that it is important to quickly come to an agreement on the scope of what we are doing under the "charter" section of the motion passed by Council, and what really belongs in the "future RAA amendments" section. Alan At 17/04/2009 04:32 AM, you wrote: Further to my comments on the call yesterday allow me to clarify and make a proposal that may save us all a lot of time. Background The BC supports a consideration of further RAA changes. Question What is the best way to do this ? Proposal 1. First, do fact finding and create a list of EXISTING registrants' rights including (and separating out) voluntary best practice (mostly a Registrars exercise). 2. Create a second list of ADDITIONAL registrants' rights that registrants want (mostly a Users exercise). 3. Create a group to study the two lists and determine which of these additional rights and voluntary best practice CAN be implemented with new RAA changes (a joint users / suppliers exercise) ie POSSIBLE even if some opinions say UNDESIRABLE. 4. Then, NEGOTIATE on which of these additional rights will go forward to be implemented by RAA changes. That may be in the minds of those that drafted the RAA motion but as I said on the call, and from what I heard on the call, I detected a confusion in approach. The key is to avoid negotiating too early or arguing over the content of a "charter of rights." As said on the call I would strongly recommend changing the terminology. Philip

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
by Tim Ruiz April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Bill, I understand your comments, but in general it sounds like you would support Philip's approach, correct? We will discuss with the rest of the RrC Executive Committee. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] RAA Drafting Team From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 4:13 am To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Philip, On Apr 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > Further to my comments on the call yesterday allow me to clarify and > make a proposal that > may save us all a lot of time. > > Background > The BC supports a consideration of further RAA changes. > > Question > What is the best way to do this ? > > Proposal > 1. First, do fact finding and create a list of EXISTING > registrants' rights including (and > separating out) voluntary best practice (mostly a Registrars > exercise). Mostly but not exclusively, and there may be differences of interpretation as to what rights now exist under relevant consumer protection laws and guidelines, hard to know ex ante. > > 2. Create a second list of ADDITIONAL registrants' rights that > registrants want (mostly a > Users exercise). Probably so, although it's at least possible other parties might see constructive grounds for additions. > > 3. Create a group to study the two lists and determine which of > these additional rights and > voluntary best practice CAN be implemented with new RAA changes (a > joint users / suppliers > exercise) ie POSSIBLE even if some opinions say UNDESIRABLE. > > 4. Then, NEGOTIATE on which of these additional rights will go > forward to be implemented by > RAA changes. Presumably it would be the same group doing 3-4 that did 1-2? > > > That may be in the minds of those that drafted the RAA motion but as > I said on the call, and > from what I heard on the call, I detected a confusion in approach. I didn't detect it; the process you describe seems pretty straightforward and consistent with what one would expect the group to be doing. > > The key is to avoid negotiating too early or arguing over the > content of a "charter of > rights." Again, hard to know before the fact whether there will be differences of view and how sharp these might be at each of the four steps, but if there are, arguing them out would seem necessary to me. > > As said on the call I would strongly recommend changing the > terminology. Council agreed to do a charter and this is why the RAA amendments passed unanimously. We can't proceed on the basis of bait and switch. Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

1 0

RE: TWO absentee ballots - please vote and return ballots
by Edmon Chung April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

> -----Original Message----- > From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:49 AM > To: Edmon Chung > Subject: TWO absentee ballots - please vote and return ballots > Importance: High > > Dear Edmon, > > PLEASE NOTE: > There are TWO motions. Please return TWO ballots, that is, send the lines preceded > with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council mailing list <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > MOTION 1 > Here is your absentee ballot. Please indicate your preference with an X and send > the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council Mailing list. > > * On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy > Development Process (PDP) I vote: > * [X] Yes > * [ ] No > * [ ] Abstain > * Password: purple-1 > > This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at > 16:10 UTC on Thursday 16 April 2009. > > Completed ballots are 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.' > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > MOTION 2 > > Here is your absentee ballot. Please indicate your preference with an X and send > the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council Mailing list. > > * On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: > * [X] Yes > * [ ] No > * [ ] Abstain > * Password: purple-1 > > This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at > 16:10 UTC on Thursday 16 April 2009. > > Completed ballots are 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 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. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: TWO absentee ballots - please vote and return ballots
by Mike Rodenbaugh April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

MOTION 2 * On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: yellow-4

1 0

FW: TWO absentee ballots - please vote and return ballots
by Mike Rodenbaugh April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

* On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: yellow-4

1 0

Motion 2 ballot
by Greg Ruth April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

MOTION 2 Here is your absentee ballot. Please indicate your preference with an X and send the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council Mailing list. * On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: * [ X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: magenta-10

1 0

Motion 1 ballot
by Greg Ruth April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

MOTION 1 Here is your absentee ballot. Please indicate your preference with an X and send the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council Mailing list. * On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: * [ X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: magenta-10

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions and Action Items 16 April 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official minutes, the following motions were voted on during the Council meeting on Thursday, 16 April 2009. The final result will be communicated when the absentee ballots have been received for both motions. Absentee voting closes on Sunday, 19 April at 16:10 UTC. MOTION 1 Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) MOTION 2 Next round of IRTP issues to address The Council passed the following resolution on Travel Funding by voice vote at the meeting on 16 April 2009. Two 'Nay' votes were heard. Present at the time of voting: Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, William Drake, Tim Ruiz, Stephane van Gelder, Chuck Gomes, Terry Davis, Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria. Absent: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Adrian Kinderis, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung. Motion on Travel Funding Made by Stéphane van Gelder Seconded by Philip Sheppard 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. The Action items arising from the Council meeting: ================================================== Item 6: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items (continued from previous Council meeting) 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. CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS: please let the GNSO Secretariat know if you would like to be subscribed to the drafting team. Item 11.7 Restructuring Group A meeting to be scheduled for the group to meet, preferably in the week 20-24 April and to report back to Council at the next Council meeting on 7 May 2009. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Notice of Absentee voting
by Glen de Saint Géry April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Dear Councilors, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the meeting today, Thursday 16 April 2009 are invited to send the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org> a request for a ballot. There are TWO Motions to vote on: 1 Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) 2 Next round of IRTP issues to address Councilors noted as absent: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Adrian Kinderis, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung. You will then be sent a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, so please indicate your reason for abstaining. This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 16:10 UTC on Thursday 16 April 2009. Completed ballots are 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) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat .............................................................................................. 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.' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 16 April, 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 16 April, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090406.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#april Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN travel funding
by Denise Michel April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Dear Community Members, As I stated on the Council call today, ICANN's CFO has indicated that there is a possibility for the GNSO to defer excess travel funding allotments to the Seoul meeting, which is in the next fiscal year. Constituencies interested in this option should contact Kevin Wilson directly at kevin.wilson (at) icann.org or +1-310-823-9358. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President

1 0

Listing of current GNSO Working Groups and key activities
by Liz Gasster April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

All, Attached is a summary listing of the current Working Groups and key activities that are currently underway in the GNSO for your reference, along with the primary policy staff person assigned to that effort. As we have so many activities underway right now, we thought this reference might be helpful. Please let me know if there are changes or additions to be made, or if you have any questions. Thanks, Liz

1 0

Amended Motion for Next Round of IRTP Issues
by Tim Ruiz April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

This amended version incorporates Chuck's requested change that I accepted as friendly (the first paragraph of the RESOLVE section). I also modified the note as suggested by Marika since that did not involve anything substantive to the motion itself. Finally, I added a paragraph at the very end in attempt to address Marika's request for an extended period of time to prepare the report. And I even went a step further than she requested in consideration of everything currently on Staff's plate right now. Amended Motion: 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.

1 0

Today's call
by Stéphane Van Gelder April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Hello all, I¹m afraid I have the same problem as Avri: another meeting clashing with ours. I will do my very best to be on the call as soon as possible, but will probably miss the first part of the call. If push comes to shove, please delay the discussion on the motion I have made until I can join the call. Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience. Stéphane

1 0

RE: [council] Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address
by Tim Ruiz April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009

Marika, I am in agreement with a 30-day period to prepare the report. Not sure if I can accept that as a friendly amendment but I think so. Either way, I will support the longer period. The clarification to the note also makes sense. Thanks, Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, April 15, 2009 1:26 pm To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear All, Based on the current workload, Staff would like to request the Council to consider a 30 day period to prepare the Issues Report, which would mean a deadline of 16 May. In addition, as a point of clarification, the Council might want to consider adding as a last sentence to the motion:´Issues a to c form the original PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C´, so that the note at the end of the motion would read´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´. With best regards, Marika ________________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz [tim(a)godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 18:10 To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address The IRTP Working Group has considered the issues contained in Part B and Part C for possible inclusion in the next round of work on the remaining IRTP issues. As a result, they have asked that I present the following motion (below in text, and attached in a Word doc): Tim 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 initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting 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.)

1 0

RE: [council] Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address
by Gomes, Chuck April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009

I like the addition. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 02:33 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address Dear All, Based on the current workload, Staff would like to request the Council to consider a 30 day period to prepare the Issues Report, which would mean a deadline of 16 May. In addition, as a point of clarification, the Council might want to consider adding as a last sentence to the motion:´Issues a to c form the original PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C´, so that the note at the end of the motion would read´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´. With best regards, Marika ________________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz [tim(a)godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 18:10 To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address The IRTP Working Group has considered the issues contained in Part B and Part C for possible inclusion in the next round of work on the remaining IRTP issues. As a result, they have asked that I present the following motion (below in text, and attached in a Word doc): Tim 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 initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting 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.)

1 0

Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address
by Tim Ruiz April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009

The IRTP Working Group has considered the issues contained in Part B and Part C for possible inclusion in the next round of work on the remaining IRTP issues. As a result, they have asked that I present the following motion (below in text, and attached in a Word doc): Tim 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 initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting 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.)

4 3

FW: Motion on Travel Funding
by Gomes, Chuck April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009

Please note the proposed friendly amendment from Cyril regarding the travel motion. Chuck ________________________________ From: Cyril Chua [mailto:Cyril.Chua@twobirds.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: Motion on Travel Funding Hi Chuck I have problems sending emails to the ICANN server. Could I trouble you to forward my email to Glen and the rest of the GNSO council members? Regards Cyril ________________________________ From: Cyril Chua Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:22 PM To: Glen de Saint Géry; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Motion on Travel Funding Dear Councillors I would like to propose a friendly amendment to the motion on travel funding made by Stephane van Gelder by adding the words "without prejudice to each constituency's existing travel credits," to the proposed resolution. The proposed amended resolution shall read as follows: "That, without prejudice to each constituency's existing travel credits, 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." I would be grateful if someone could second my proposed friendly amendment. Regards Cyril ________________________________ ATMD Bird & Bird LLP is a Singapore law practice registered as a limited liability partnership in Singapore with registration number T08LL0001K. The firm is associated with Bird & Bird, an international legal practice. It is solely a Singapore law practice and is not an affiliate, branch or subsidiary of Bird & Bird or Bird & Bird LLP. ________________________________ This message (including attachments) contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not to take any action in reliance on it nor to disseminate, distribute, publish or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please accept our apologies, delete all copies from your system and notify us at atmdmail(a)twobirds.com <mailto:atmdmail@twobirds.com> . Unless it relates to the official business of ATMD Bird & Bird LLP, any opinions or matters expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. ________________________________

1 0

[Fwd: ccNSO PDP on IDN ccTLDs]
by Avri Doria April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009

Hi, Hi, We need to add a brief discussion of this under AOB at our meeting this week. thanks a. -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> To: avri(a)acm.org Cc: Boswinkel, Bart <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: ccNSO PDP on IDN ccTLDs Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:59:16 +1000 (EST) Avri, Attached please find the Issues Report on the PDP for IDN ccTLDs. I confirm that in accordance with the recommendations if the report, the ccNSO has resolved to launch the PDP. You will note that the Issues Report recommends the formation of 2 Working Groups (see Issues Report section 4 Methodology and Annex B Charter Working Group 1). WG 1 is in the process of being formed and in accordance with its Charter I request that the gNSO nominate 2 members to the WG as soon as possible. Cheers, Chris Disspain Chair – ccNSO Council __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4005 (20090413) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

2 1

Formal Petition and Charter of Proposed New Consumers Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter package of the proposed new Consumers Constituency submitted formally today by Beau Brendler of Consumer Reports/Web Watch. This is now the second 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 a copy of the submission to the GNSO's Constituency leaders list. The document is now also 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

1 0