April 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

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 14, 2009

April 14, 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 14, 2009

April 14, 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 14, 2009

April 14, 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