May 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Conference call on Friday 8 May
by Glen de Saint Géry May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Forwarded on Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Hi, I will not be able to participate in the conference call next Friday as I will be travelling to Europe. Let me give you an update about the issues I am following, and perhaps you can comment on them if needed: Geo Regions: Zahid was also on the call and he may comment about this. In relation with the Geo- Regions Working group we had a conference call today and agreed as next step to share a document that defines different categories in relation with geographic regions in relation with representation, operation, participation and others thay may arise. Also Robert prepared a table with ccNSO and GNSO imputs in relation with the SO and the geographic regions, the document will be posted in the wiki of the WG for further updates and revision by constituencies if needed. Next conference call will be in two weeks. A document with an innitial report for the use of geographic regions should be issued before June. ccNSO update: There is the issue about WG 1 peding, I do not have information about due dates for sending names of GNSO representatives to the group. As mentioned before, I want to volunteer for participating in this WG1. Travel drafting team: Not many news after Stephane´s motion was passed. Kevin requested info for travel support, this info was already circulated in the GNSO list. Best regards and my apologies for not being on the call next Friday. Olga Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

i'm in
by Jordi Iparraguirre May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

I'm in and calling from a cell phone and partially driving. I'll have to disconnect by 5:45pm CEST thanks jordi -- --- Jordi Iparraguirre Fundació puntCAT www.domini.cat

2 1

Board Update
by Denise Michel May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Dear Council and Community Members, Unfortunately I am on travel and unable to join the Council call today. I am providing a "Board update" via email and would be happy to provide additional information later today, if needed. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development The preliminary report of the Board's 23 April 2009 meeting is posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-23apr09.htm>. I would like to call the GNSO's attention to three items in particular: 1) GNSO Improvements -- Implementation Efforts and Council Restructuring Staff provided an update to the Board on the status of the GNSO Improvements Implementation Efforts and the work remaining prior to the June 2009 implementation timeline approved by the Board. Staff and Board addressed specific issues relating to the outstanding petitions and charters of new Stakeholder Groups and potential amendment of those documents, as well as petitions and charters for new Constituency groups and the anticipated receipt of further petitions. Staff was directed to continue work towards implementation, and no Board action was taken. The Board's Structural Improvement Committee will be discussing these issues at their 14 April 2009 meeting and may provide the Board with recommended actions. 2) RAA Amendments The Board discussed the amendments and directed Staff to send a letter to the US DOC confirming the benefits of the new RAA, prior to the Board's final approval. The Board is expected to act on the amendments at their next (21 May) meeting. This information was provided to the Council list on 24 April by Director Bruce Tonkin (see <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06692.html>). 3) Working Group to Review the Structure of ICANN’s Present Geographic Regions The Board briefly discussed the proposed charter of the community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN’s present geographic regions. As a question was raised by a Board member, the Board deferred approval of the charter until their next (21 May) meeting. The full agenda for the Board's 23 April meeting is included below, FYI. A. Consent Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes – 3 February 2009 and 12 February 2009 2. Approval of Board Audit Committee’s Recommendation for Engagement of Auditors for FY09-10 3. Approval of Charter of Community-Wide Working Group to Review The Structure of ICANN’s Present Geographic Regions 4. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation regarding Ombudsman Framework 5. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation for Posting of the Revised Conflict of Interest Policy for Public Comment 6. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation of Procedures for Board Nominations 7. Approval of Redelegation of .NG 8. Approval of Phased Allocation Process for Single & Two-Character Domain Names in .BIZ, including proposed Contract Amendment 9. Approval of Posting for Public Comment the Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency 10. 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 1. Implementation Efforts 2. GNSO Council Restructuring 2. New gTLD Implementation Updates 1. Implementation Recommendation Team 2. Geographical Names 3. 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 1. Audit Committee – 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report 2. Board Governance Committee – 11 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes 3. Finance Committee – 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report 4. IANA Committee – 28 January 2009 and 16 February 2009 Minutes and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Report 5. Public Participation Committee – 17 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes 6. Risk Committee – 27 January 2009 and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Reports 7. Structural Improvements Committee – 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report

1 0

Public Comment: Single, Two and Select Three Character Names in .PRO
by Glen de Saint Géry May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-06may09-en.htm Public Comment: Single, Two and Select Three Character Names in .PRO 6 May 2009 ICANN is today opening a public comment forum on a proposed amendment from RegistryPro to Appendix C and K of the .PRO Registry Agreement. On 8 April 2009, ICANN posted for public information a request submitted by RegistryPro through the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP). The request calls for a phased allocation process for single, two and select three character names in .PRO. The RegistryPro proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/registry-pro-08apr09-en.pdf [PDF, 132K]. As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html) ICANN performed a preliminary review to determine whether the proposal might raise significant security, stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposal does not raise such issues. [Note that, from 13 June to 13 July 2008, ICANN conducted a public comment forum on a proposed single-character second-level domain names allocation framework (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/proposed-scsld-allocation-framework…) which supported the allocation single-character second-level domain names in existing registries and reviewed various allocation methods.] The proposal requires an amendment the .PRO Schedule of Reserved Names (Appendix K) and a description of the phased allocation program is proposed to be inserted in Section 12 of Appendix C. A copy of the proposed contract amendment is available here [PDF, 100K]. Comments on the proposed amendment may be submitted to pro-alloc-amendment at icann.org through 5 June 2009 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/pro-alloc-amendment/. All documentation related to the RegistryPro proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009002. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Glen de Saint Géry May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06may09-en.htm Public Comment: Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy 6 May 2009 A new public comment period opens today on the revised Conflicts of Interest Policy [PDF, 117K]. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-06may09-en.pdf Click here to go through to the public comment period (open until 5 June 2009). http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200906.html#coi The ICANN Board initially adopted a Conflicts of Interest Policy on 4 March 1999, pursuant to ICANN Bylaws, Article V, Section 7, and Article VI, Section 3(b). The Board Governance Committee ("BGC") has responsibility for administration of ICANN's Conflicts of Interest Policy. The Committee charter specifically states that the BGC "shall periodically review the Conflicts of Interest Policy and consider whether any modifications should be made to the policy to improve its effectiveness." In furtherance of its role, the BGC has reviewed and significantly revised the Conflicts of Interest Policy in order to, among other things, remain current with legal disclosure requirements. On 23 April 2009, the ICANN Board of Directors followed the BGC's recommendation that the revised Conflicts of Interest Policy [PDF, 117K] be posted for public comment. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-06may09-en.pdf Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools
by Tim Ruiz May 6, 2009

May 6, 2009

Got it. Thanks. Tim Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service > tools > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Date: Wed, May 06, 2009 9:00 am > To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hi, > > > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:04 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > > Thanks Avri. Still a little confused by what you mean by strawman > > proposal, particularly the proposal part. Is that asking for a > > proposed > > solution that meets the collected requirements? > > > A few words were missing from the copy on the email, that are included > in the motion on the wiki. > > | The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the > | SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal > | should be prepared for these consultation. The Staff is asked to come > | back with an estimate of when this would be possible. > > This was wording, recommended by the staff just so that the work load > would be deferred as necessary. The process they have offered to take > is that they will do some initial work on understanding the system > requirements and produce a proposal that not only checks the direction > they are going in, but which can be used as the basis for the > consultations with the appropriate ACSOs. > > And instead of imposing a date, we are putting the work on the stack, > but asking for staff to indicate when they will be able to do it. In a > scheduling exercise I would have identified this as having an end/end > dependency with getting results from studies, i.e. they should be > finished around the same time so that when the council next discusses > Whois Policy (which has to happen again someday), they have as much fact > based data as possible. > > > > Concerned about Staff resources. They are there to support us, but we > > should try to recognize there are limitations, designate priorities, > > etc. But in general, I would prefer we do the requirements collection > > ourselves (of course, we have our own resource issues). That said, I'm > > not going to the mat over it. > > > > I think that concern was widespread. There was also a contravening > concern of needing to understand the work that would be involved in > meeting some of the possible task that need to be done, especially IDN > support. As in most engineering jobs, one of the components of the > understanding should come from understanding the possible changes to the > service system at a layer, or more, below the policy layer. > > The understanding of what it would take, if some of the policy decisions > are made, added to the information that will hopefully be ferreted out > by studies, could help in making fact based decisions on future whois > policy discussions. > > I agree with you about the need to prioritize, and I suggest that once > the bi-cameral council is seated, it be one of the first things it does. > I suggest that finding out what it will take to update the whois service > for IDN, among other possible needs, is part of the important set of > things to get started as any system changes will take a while to > execute. > > Thanks for your comments and questions. > > a.

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools
by Tim Ruiz May 6, 2009

May 6, 2009

Thanks Avri. Still a little confused by what you mean by strawman proposal, particularly the proposal part. Is that asking for a proposed solution that meets the collected requirements? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 11:05 pm To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, In making the amendments to the motion, I have changed the recommendation to drop specific examples like tiered access - though the proposal has been made in the past and discussed at length - it would be good to have some analysis of what it means to change the system to support this. Also I forgot that I had already agreed to a friendly amendment from the staff allowing more flexibility in delivery dates (this was in the motion on the wiki, but still in parenthesis). the Resolution now reads: Resolved, The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past. The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should be prepared. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of when this would be possible. On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 14:06 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote: > Avri, > > The requested amendments say *collect and organize* and nothing about > policy making. In fact, your motion mentions tiered access and privacy, > which are possible policy requirements. We have nothing even close to a > policy that calls for either one. I am simply suggesting that the > Council start the collecting and organizing and then turn it over to > Staff to complete. > > How about a compromise and table this until after the requested analysis > of the studies is complete, or at least word it so that Staff is not > expected to start this until after the studies analysis is complete. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service > tools > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> > Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 2:53 pm > To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi, > > While I am comfortable with the addition to the Whereas, I am > uncomfortable with the changes suggested for the Resolved with onbe > exception, I support the change of date to Seoul. > > The rest of the amendment seems to call for a requirements setting > exercise which has a fairly strong policy implication and a decision > component. I think that is needed, but I do not think it is the first > step and I don't think we will be ready for that until after we have the > results of any studies that might be done. > > In writing the motion as I did, I was taking into account the many > different 'requirements' have been stated or implied by the work done to > date. Before we can do anything in terms of setting formal Policy > requirements or determining if the current tools have the capabilities > we to understand those many potential requirements as service system > requirements. > > So I envision this as a data collection and analysis exercise, not as a > policy making exercise, though I hope the information will feed into the > ability to make the policy decisions in an informed manner. > > Given all of the requirements that have been stated, can these be > collected and understood on the basis of the software/system > requirements. > > So I accept the friendly amendment of the whereas and on the date, but > not of the resolution. I will make the changes to reflect the friendly > amendments I am accepting. > > Tim, if you like, and someone seconds, we can vote on your amendment > before voting on the motion. > > thanks > > a. > > > > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 08:38 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > Given the current load I'd to make the following friendly amendments to > > the Motion on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for Whois Service > > Tools: > > > > Add the following as a sixth part of the Whereas: > > > > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A Working Group 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, > > > > Modify the two paragraphs of the Resolved section to read: > > > > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of policy > > requirements for the Whois service policy tools that may need to be > > supported such as tiered services and privacy protection. > > > > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO Council will > > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based on those > > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide an estimate > > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical requirements for a > > Whois service tool. > > > > I would prefer that the Council be the ones, and are actually the best > > ones, to identify the possible policy needs for a new Whois > > tool/protocol. But given our current workload I did not include a > > timeframe, but perhaps we could make it all, including Staff work, to be > > done by Korea, I think Sydney is not reasonable at this point. It also > > relieves the workload on Staff a bit. It also incorporates a related > > recommendation from the IRTP-A WG so that we don't duplicate efforts (we > > probably include within the possible policy requirements we gather). > > > > I believe this all makes sense given that I believe the restructuring > > should be our priority right now, and realization that new gTLD issues > > are going to consume a lot of our time. > > > > If accepted the amended motion would then read as follows: > > > > Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of > > the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to > > support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, > > > > and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use > > in an IDN environment, > > > > and, that there have been extensive discussions about the requirements > > of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations, > > > > and, new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by > > the technical community, > > > > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A Working Group 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, > > > > Resolved, > > > > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of policy > > requirements for the Whois service policy tools that may need to be > > supported such as tiered services and privacy protection. > > > > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO Council will > > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based on those > > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide an estimate > > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical requirements for a > > Whois service tool. > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

GNSO Council Agenda 7 May 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry May 6, 2009

May 6, 2009

Dear All, Please find the updated agenda posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/ And on the Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_07_may_2009 The updates relate to 8.5.2 and 8.5.3 8. 5 Joint AC/SO Efforts 8. 5 . 1 Joint GNSO/ccNSO group to discuss coordination of timing for IDN TLDs (Avri Doria /Chris Disspain) update 8. 5. 2 Appointment of 2 GNSO Council representatives on the ccNSO PDP working group 8. 5. 3 RAA with ALAC http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-07may09.shtml Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 7 May 2009 This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time 14:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, 00:00 Melbourne next day) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins. Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members. Item 0: Roll call of Council members Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Review/amend agenda Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes (Items 1-3 15 mins.) GNSO Council minutes 16 April 2009 Item 4: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP) decision (deferred from previous meeting) (20 mins.) GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf See motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?07_may_motions Item 5: GAC Position Paper on Geographic Names (20 mins.) GAC Response to Geographic Terms Protection http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf Item 6: Whois service requirements motion (10 mins.) See motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?07_may_motions Item 7: Preparation for the Sydney meetings (10 mins.) Sydney Schedule http://syd.icann.org/syd/schedule Item 8: Status Updates (20 mins) 8. 1 Board Update Board Agenda http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-23apr09.htm Preliminary report http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-23apr09.htm 8. 2 ccNSO Liaison update 8. 3 Geographical Region WG update 8. 4 Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) status update Draft Report - Introduction: Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-draft-report-trademark-protect… Other references: WIKI for Overarching Issues discussions: https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?new_gtld_overarc… New gTLD Page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm 8. 5 Joint AC/SO Efforts 8. 5 . 1 Joint GNSO/ccNSO group to discuss coordination of timing for IDN TLDs (Avri Doria /Chris Disspain) update 8. 5. 2 Appointment of 2 GNSO Council representatives on the ccNSO PDP working group 8. 5. 3 RAA with ALAC 8. 6 Policy Items 8. 6. 1. Working Groups 8. 6. 1. 1. Fast Flux 8. 6. 1. 2. Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) 8. 6. 2. Drafting Teams 8. 6. 2. 1. Travel Policy Drafting Team - Travel Database for Sydney 8. 6. 2. 2. IDN gTLD Fast Track 8. 6. 3 GNSO Improvement Work Teams 8. 6. 3. 1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) 8. 6. 3. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT 8. 6. 3. 3. Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Communications coordination work team 8. 6. 3. 4. OSC Constituency operations work team 8. 6. 3. 5. OSC GNSO Council operations work team 8. 7. Restructuring group http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf 8. 7. 1. Status of By-Law discussions Item 9: AOB (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 1600 Brussels, 00:00 Melbourne next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4+1DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 15:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 00:00 (Friday) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2009, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools
by Tim Ruiz May 6, 2009

May 6, 2009

Chuck, Concerned about Staff resources. They are there to support us, but we should try to recognize there are limitations, designate priorities, etc. But in general, I would prefer we do the requirements collection ourselves (of course, we have our own resource issues). That said, I'm not going to the mat over it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 7:15 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tabling the motion doesn't seem like a very good idea to me but I am open to being convinced. Tim - What are your concerns about Avri's version of the motion? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 5:07 PM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois > service tools > > > Avri, > > The requested amendments say *collect and organize* and > nothing about policy making. In fact, your motion mentions > tiered access and privacy, which are possible policy > requirements. We have nothing even close to a policy that > calls for either one. I am simply suggesting that the Council > start the collecting and organizing and then turn it over to > Staff to complete. > > How about a compromise and table this until after the > requested analysis of the studies is complete, or at least > word it so that Staff is not expected to start this until > after the studies analysis is complete. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois > service tools > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> > Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 2:53 pm > To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi, > > While I am comfortable with the addition to the Whereas, I am > uncomfortable with the changes suggested for the Resolved > with onbe exception, I support the change of date to Seoul. > > The rest of the amendment seems to call for a requirements > setting exercise which has a fairly strong policy implication > and a decision component. I think that is needed, but I do > not think it is the first step and I don't think we will be > ready for that until after we have the results of any studies > that might be done. > > In writing the motion as I did, I was taking into account the > many different 'requirements' have been stated or implied by > the work done to date. Before we can do anything in terms of > setting formal Policy requirements or determining if the > current tools have the capabilities we to understand those > many potential requirements as service system requirements. > > So I envision this as a data collection and analysis > exercise, not as a policy making exercise, though I hope the > information will feed into the ability to make the policy > decisions in an informed manner. > > Given all of the requirements that have been stated, can > these be collected and understood on the basis of the > software/system requirements. > > So I accept the friendly amendment of the whereas and on the > date, but not of the resolution. I will make the changes to > reflect the friendly amendments I am accepting. > > Tim, if you like, and someone seconds, we can vote on your > amendment before voting on the motion. > > thanks > > a. > > > > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 08:38 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > Given the current load I'd to make the following friendly > amendments > > to the Motion on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for > Whois Service > > Tools: > > > > Add the following as a sixth part of the Whereas: > > > > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A > Working Group > > 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, > > > > Modify the two paragraphs of the Resolved section to read: > > > > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of > > policy requirements for the Whois service policy tools that > may need > > to be supported such as tiered services and privacy protection. > > > > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO > Council will > > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based > on those > > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide > an estimate > > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical > requirements for a > > Whois service tool. > > > > I would prefer that the Council be the ones, and are > actually the best > > ones, to identify the possible policy needs for a new Whois > > tool/protocol. But given our current workload I did not include a > > timeframe, but perhaps we could make it all, including > Staff work, to > > be done by Korea, I think Sydney is not reasonable at this > point. It > > also relieves the workload on Staff a bit. It also incorporates a > > related recommendation from the IRTP-A WG so that we don't > duplicate > > efforts (we probably include within the possible policy > requirements we gather). > > > > I believe this all makes sense given that I believe the > restructuring > > should be our priority right now, and realization that new > gTLD issues > > are going to consume a lot of our time. > > > > If accepted the amended motion would then read as follows: > > > > Whereas there have been discussions for several years on > the adequacy > > of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary > functions > > to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, > > > > and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these > tools for > > use in an IDN environment, > > > > and, that there have been extensive discussions about the > requirements > > of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar > > operations, > > > > and, new architectures and tools have been developed and > suggested by > > the technical community, > > > > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A > Working Group > > 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, > > > > Resolved, > > > > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of > > policy requirements for the Whois service policy tools that > may need > > to be supported such as tiered services and privacy protection. > > > > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO > Council will > > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based > on those > > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide > an estimate > > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical > requirements for a > > Whois service tool. > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools
by Tim Ruiz May 6, 2009

May 6, 2009

Avri, The requested amendments say *collect and organize* and nothing about policy making. In fact, your motion mentions tiered access and privacy, which are possible policy requirements. We have nothing even close to a policy that calls for either one. I am simply suggesting that the Council start the collecting and organizing and then turn it over to Staff to complete. How about a compromise and table this until after the requested analysis of the studies is complete, or at least word it so that Staff is not expected to start this until after the studies analysis is complete. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 2:53 pm To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, While I am comfortable with the addition to the Whereas, I am uncomfortable with the changes suggested for the Resolved with onbe exception, I support the change of date to Seoul. The rest of the amendment seems to call for a requirements setting exercise which has a fairly strong policy implication and a decision component. I think that is needed, but I do not think it is the first step and I don't think we will be ready for that until after we have the results of any studies that might be done. In writing the motion as I did, I was taking into account the many different 'requirements' have been stated or implied by the work done to date. Before we can do anything in terms of setting formal Policy requirements or determining if the current tools have the capabilities we to understand those many potential requirements as service system requirements. So I envision this as a data collection and analysis exercise, not as a policy making exercise, though I hope the information will feed into the ability to make the policy decisions in an informed manner. Given all of the requirements that have been stated, can these be collected and understood on the basis of the software/system requirements. So I accept the friendly amendment of the whereas and on the date, but not of the resolution. I will make the changes to reflect the friendly amendments I am accepting. Tim, if you like, and someone seconds, we can vote on your amendment before voting on the motion. thanks a. On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 08:38 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote: > Given the current load I'd to make the following friendly amendments to > the Motion on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for Whois Service > Tools: > > Add the following as a sixth part of the Whereas: > > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A Working Group 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, > > Modify the two paragraphs of the Resolved section to read: > > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of policy > requirements for the Whois service policy tools that may need to be > supported such as tiered services and privacy protection. > > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO Council will > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based on those > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide an estimate > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical requirements for a > Whois service tool. > > I would prefer that the Council be the ones, and are actually the best > ones, to identify the possible policy needs for a new Whois > tool/protocol. But given our current workload I did not include a > timeframe, but perhaps we could make it all, including Staff work, to be > done by Korea, I think Sydney is not reasonable at this point. It also > relieves the workload on Staff a bit. It also incorporates a related > recommendation from the IRTP-A WG so that we don't duplicate efforts (we > probably include within the possible policy requirements we gather). > > I believe this all makes sense given that I believe the restructuring > should be our priority right now, and realization that new gTLD issues > are going to consume a lot of our time. > > If accepted the amended motion would then read as follows: > > Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of > the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to > support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, > > and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use > in an IDN environment, > > and, that there have been extensive discussions about the requirements > of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations, > > and, new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by > the technical community, > > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A Working Group 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, > > Resolved, > > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of policy > requirements for the Whois service policy tools that may need to be > supported such as tiered services and privacy protection. > > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO Council will > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based on those > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide an estimate > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical requirements for a > Whois service tool. > > > >

3 2