June 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Sydney Absentee vote on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B
by Glen de Saint Géry June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Forwarded From: William Drake > * On the motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process > (PDP) on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B I vote: > * [X ] Yes > * [ ] No > * [ ] Abstain > * Password: red-6 >

1 0

Information for tonight's Gala
by Adrian Kinderis June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Please forward to folks at ICANN Sydney. Gala is at Overseas Passenger Terminal from 6.30pm. It is a 10 - 15 minute walk from Hilton Hotel. There are limited buses from 6.00pm. Plenty of food and alcohol. No need for dinner reservations! Not so many speeches! Special Australian guests!!!! After party at the Argyle (around the corner from the OPT) from 9.30pm. Amazing views and a great night guaranteed* *Guarantee not valid in Australia 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/> - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint<http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint> 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

GNSO Council resolutions 24 June 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the GNSO Council adopted two resolutions, one approving a working group charter on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery and the second initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B. Motion 1 Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group Charter Motion made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded by: Chuck Gomes This charter is based on the GNSO Council decision to create a PDP WG to recommend best practices and/or consensus policies regarding the issues defined in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report at:http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf The full resolution of the Council on 7 May 2009: Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to PEDNR; Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report; Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP; Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of registrar transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP Part C PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES To initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group: - that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; - that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, andrecovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced; - and that it should specifically consider the following questions: Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined). Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter. Charter Whereas: The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); and The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the bylaw; The GNSO Council RESOLVES To form a Working Group composed of Constituency representatives as well as interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members or representatives of the ICANN Advisory Committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC. The Working Group initially shall: 1. Pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names following expiration are enforced; 2. Review and understand the current domain name life cycle; 3. Review current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. The Working Group shall then consider the following questions: 1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; 2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; 3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; 4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); 5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Working Group is expected to organize an issue update / workshop at the Seoul meeting, in addition to an update to the GNSO Council. The Working Group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy. Working Group processes: While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG: The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report. In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: Unanimous consensus position Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree Strong support but significant opposition Minority viewpoint(s) If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially : 1. Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error. 2. If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response. * If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response. 3. If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council. The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed. The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A PEDNR WG mailing list has been created (gnso-pednr-dt(a)icann.org) with public archives at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/. A SocialText wiki has been provided for WG usage and can be found athttps://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi?post_expira… If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time itwas (re)chartered or use the new guidelines. The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council. All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal. Milestones WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified = T Initial Report: T + 150 - 170 days First comment period ends: T + 170 - 200 days Preliminary Final Report: T + 190 - 220 days. Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval Motion passed unanimously by show of hands Motion 2. Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Motion by: Tim Ruiz Seconded: Chuck Gomes Whereas: The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008, The GNSO Council, in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, resolved on 16 April 2009 to combine the issues outlined under the original issue set B, addressing three issues on undoing IRTP transfers, and some of the issues outlined in issue set C, related to registrar lock status into one IRTP Part B, The GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B was submitted to the GNSO Council on 15 May 2009, The Issues Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO Resolved: The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report Part B. A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. 24 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis, Avri Doria (one vote each) Edmon Chun, Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each) There are two absentee votes still outstanding: Bill Drake, (one vote) Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes) 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

Correspondence for the Structural Improvements Committee
by Denise Michel June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009

Dear Community Members: Emails to the Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) (< http://www.icann.org/en/committees/improvements/>) should be sent to Diane Schroeder, Director for Board Support, <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org>. Please indicate that the email is for the SIC and Diane will immediately forward it to all SIC members. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct

1 0

Adobe Connect for today's meeting
by Marika Konings June 23, 2009

June 23, 2009

http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsoc-sydney/

1 0

Updated version of the Internationalized Domain Name Group charter
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2009

June 23, 2009

Dear Councillors, An updated version of the Internationalized Domain Name Group (IDNG) charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idng-wg-charter-draft-23jun09.pdf is posted on the draft documents page: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

IDNG update
by Edmon Chung June 23, 2009

June 23, 2009

Hi Everyone, Sending this ahead of the council meeting here in Sydney. There has been increased interest in the discussion regarding this issue in the last couple of weeks, and then a very constructive discussion Sunday morning at the GNSO IDN session. The result of which moved the direction of the group from purely talking about an IDN gTLD fast track to a more basic foundation to consider methods to harmonize/coordinate the introduction of new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs to the root. Subsequently the items were also brought up at the GNSO/ccNSO lunch earlier in the week, and there seems to be enough common interest to work together, especially on issues of common interest (in 2. below). Basically, the charter is rewritten based on a different starting point: 1. To identify and report on feasible methods and measures for harmonizing the introduction of new IDN TLDs - PREMISE: IF the full new gTLD process is further delayed - previous GNSO council statements (for reference): - if they [new IDN ccTLDs / new IDN gTLDs] are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts - the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree - i.e. the group would consider multiple options, e.g.: - OPTION 1: come to a mutual understanding that the firsts of the new IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs would be introduced into the root at approximately the same time - OPTION 2: IDN gTLD Fast Track - OPTION n...: other possibilities to be identified 2. To identify and make implementation recommendations for certain issues of common interest (between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs) - e.g.: IDNA standards revision - Variant management at the root - etc. See attached revised charter. We have also received strong reminders to emphasize on the user experience and user expectations of IDN TLDs to set the stage for the discussion. The current draft is very focused on the policy processes. Will add in the underlying considerations for consistency and to deliver on user expectations in the next version. We are not moving for a motion tomorrow, but am also including a draft below for everyone's reference. I think the "WHEREAS" section seems relatively stable, we need to figure out what the resolutions should be. Edmon =========================== WHEREAS: The ICANN community has been discussing issues related to IDN and IDN TLDs since 2000, and the ICANN board as early as September 2000 recognized "that it is important that the Internet evolve to be more accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set"; There is expressed demand from the community, especially from language communities around the world who do not use English or a Latin based script as a primary language, including the CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) communities and the right-to-left directional script communities (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, etc.), for advancing the introduction of Internationalized Top-Level Domains (IDN TLDs); GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007, describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs; The community observes the successful development of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track based on the IDNC WG recommendations, and the ongoing progress for the Implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process; The implementation of the New gTLD process is ongoing and the schedule and development of the implementation should continue; GNSO Council had made comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues, as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final Report expressed that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts”; GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that “the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree”; RESOLVED (TO BE DRAFTED): - initiate joint working group with ccNSO? - initiate GNSO working group? - request board to create a working group? - emphasize our position regarding introduction of new IDN TLDs? - All of the above in parallel?

1 0

Updated By-laws Article X posted
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2009

June 23, 2009

Dear Councillors, The updated version of the By-laws Article X: Generic Names Supporting Organization (PDF) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-bylaws-article-x-22jun09.pdf is posted on the draft documents page: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Policy Update - June 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2009

June 23, 2009

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> Policy Update Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/ Volume 09, Issue 06 – June 2009 ________________________________ Contents 1. YOUR INPUT NEEDED NOW ON POLICY-RELATED ISSUES<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#1> 2. CCNSO TO EXPLORE CCTLD DELEGATION AND RELATED POLICIES<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#2> 3. CCNSO ADDS NEW MEMBERS <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#3> 4. CCNSO SEEKS REGISTRY PROFILE INFORMATION<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#4> 5. GNSO IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ADVANCES WITH FOCUS ON STAKEHOLDER GROUP CHARTERS <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#5> 6. GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS REVIEW CHARTER REVISED AND READY FOR BOARD APPROVAL<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#6> 7. RIRS DISCUSS GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL FOR RECOVERED IPv4 ADDRESS SPACE<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#7> 8. SSAC STUDIES, REVIEWS AND ACTIVITIES ADVANCE<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#8> 9. WORK UNDER WAY ON GNSO COUNCIL WHOIS REQUIREMENTS<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#9> 10. REGISTRATION ABUSE POLICIES GET CLOSER LOOK<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#10> 11. GNSO CONSIDERS EXPIRED DOMAIN NAME RECOVERY CHANGES<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#11> 12. MAKING IT EASIER TO TRANSFER DOMAINS BETWEEN REGISTRARS<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#12> 13. HOW DO WE DEAL WITH FAST FLUXING CYBERCRIMINALS?<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#13> 14. AT-LARGE COMMUNITY WELCOMES NEW USER GROUPS<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#14> 15. AT-LARGE COMMUNITY ACTIVE ON MANY POLICY FRONTS<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun09-en.htm#15> The ICANN Policy Update<http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/> contains brief summaries of issues being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as information on related policy development activities. ICANN's Policy Staff publishes these monthly updates to maximize transparency and encourage broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities. Links to additional information are included and readers are encouraged to go beyond these brief summaries to learn more about the ICANN community's work. As always, the Policy Staff welcomes comments and suggestions on how to improve its policy communications efforts. Please send these comments to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>.

1 0

Revised Bylaws
by Margie Milam June 22, 2009

June 22, 2009

Dear All, Attached for your approval are the Revised Bylaws related to GNSO restructuring that incorporates the revisions we discussed on Saturday and Sunday. Please note that in preparing this version, I have added certain Sections that did not change from the existing Bylaws. These sections are highlighted with the notation [unchanged] and are found in Article X, Section 3(4) and Article X, Section 3(7). I have also highlighted Article X Section 3(5) relating to Board Seats 13 and 14, and Article XX Section 5(4), relating to the transition seat allocation. Both of these Sections are awaiting SIC approval. Regards, Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

1 0