April 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] ICANN Board meeting agenda - 23 April 2009
by Bruce Tonkin 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

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 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

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 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

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 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

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 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

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 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

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 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

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 20 Apr '09

20 Apr '09

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 19 Apr '09

19 Apr '09

* 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 19 Apr '09

19 Apr '09

* 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