July 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
by Edmon Chung July 22, 2009

July 22, 2009

Hi Everyone, This is following up on one of the items brought up during our meeting in Sydney, including at the ccNSO-GNSO lunch and subsequently at our council meeting. That is the possibility of creating a Joint Working Group between the ccNSO and the GNSO to discuss issues of common interest regarding IDN TLDs. Myself and Zhang Jian of ccNSO have been corresponding thereupon on drafting a charter for this Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG). See attached the proposed Draft Charter for the group. The draft was also circulated to the IDNG Drafting Team and the ccNSO and feedback incorporated. The key aspects of the charter include: - Purpose: identify and report on areas of common interest among the ccNSO and the GNSO for IDN TLDs - Scope: issues where implementation for IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be consistent OR issues where there is inter-relation between implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs - Issues are considered to be out of scope if either the ccNSO or the GNSO believes it is not an issue of common interest - The implementation schedule for the ongoing New gTLD process and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track should not be delayed or wait for the report from the JIG - Target to produce a final report for the initial tasks before Seoul meeting Based on the discussions in Sydney, there seems to be support for creating a joint working group, and the charter is an attempt to create a mutually agreeable framework. Below is a draft motion for the formation of the JIG: =============================================== WHEREAS 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 Board Proposal from the IDNC WG was completed in June 2008, describing the IDN ccTLD Fast Track methodology; Both the drafts and excerpts for the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD process, and the drafts for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan had included implementation considerations for IDN TLDs; and, Issues of common interest between new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs can be identified, including issues where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be consistent (e.g. IDN Language Table implementation at the root zone), and where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are inter-related (e.g. 2-Character length TLDs as a reservation for ccTLDs); RESOLVED: To initiate together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) be formed based on the Draft Charter. =============================================== Comments and thoughts welcome, hopefully we can get this Joint WG together with the ccNSO. Think it would be a meaningful development for ICANN also. Edmon

2 3

Revised draft GNSO Council special meeting minutes 9 July 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry July 21, 2009

July 21, 2009

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the revised draft GNSO Council minutes of the special meeting on 9 July 2009. Bill Drake proposed the following revision to the last paragraph of the draft minutes: "In response to a staff plea for public comments on the proposed SG charters, Bill Drake drew attention to NCUC members' strong disagreement with the SIC/staff version of the NCSG charter. He noted that there had already been a public comment period in which dozens of organizations supported the inclusive charter model proposed by NCUC and rejected an alternative constituency-centric model. Nevertheless, the SIC/staff version disregards these comments and NCUC's work in favor of a constituency-centric model. Since NCUC's members and external supporters have already rejected the SIC/staff approach, he questioned whether it is really necessary and practical to go back to all these parties and ask them to re-state their positions when the forthcoming staff synthesis could simply refer back to their prior statements." Please let me know if there are any other revisions you would like made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft GNSO Council Special Meeting Minutes of 9 July 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry July 21, 2009

July 21, 2009

Dear Councillors, Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Special Meeting Minutes of 9 July 2009. Please let me know whether you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 23 July 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry July 21, 2009

July 21, 2009

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 23 July 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-23jul09.shtml Wiki Reference: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_23_july_2009 This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council Coordinated Universal Time 16:00 UTC - see below for local times (09:00 Los Angeles, 12:00 Washington DC, 17:00 London, 18:00 Brussels, 02:00 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 28 May 2009 GNSO Council minutes 9 July 2009 Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Charter Motion see motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_july_motions Item 5: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) Draft Charter Draft Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jig-charter-16jul09.pdf see motion on Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_july_motions Item 6: Initial Discussion - developing a GNSO Policy Strategy for 2010 Item 7: Status Updates (20 mins) 7. 1. Board Update Adopted Resolutions 26 June 2009 7. 2. ccNSO Liaison update 7. 3. Geographical Region WG update 7. 4. Joint AC/SO Efforts 7. 4 . 1. IDNG Working Group update IDNG Draft Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idng-wg-charter-16jul09.pdf 7. 4. 2. RAA with ALAC 7. 5 Policy Items 7. 5. 1. Working Groups 7. 5. 1. 1. Fast Flux 7. 5. 1. 2. Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) 7. 5. 1. 3. Post-Expiry Domain Name Recovery Working Group 7. 6. Drafting Teams 7. 6. 1. Travel Policy Drafting Team - Travel Preparation for Seoul 7. 7. GNSO Improvement Work Teams 7. 7. 1. Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) 7. 7. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT 7. 7. 3. Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Communications coordination work team 7. 7. 4. OSC Constituency operations work team 7. 7. 5. OSC GNSO Council operations work team 7. 8. Restructuring effort 7. 8. 1. Status of By-Law amendments 7. 8. 2. Stakeholder Group Charters 7. 8. 3. Constituency Charters 7. 9. Countdown to Seoul - Schedule check Item 8: AOB - Action Items (09:00 Los Angeles, 12:00 Washington DC, 17:00 London, 18:00 Brussels, 02:00 Melbourne next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4+1DST 12:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 13:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 17:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 18:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 18:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 22:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 00:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 02:00 (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 Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Brainstorming Sydney session transcript and MP3
by Glen de Saint Géry July 21, 2009

July 21, 2009

Dear All, The transcript of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Brainstorming session held on Sunday, June 21 2009 in Sydney can be viewed at: http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/transcript-irtp-b-brainstorm… The MP3 recording of the meeting is available at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-b-20090621.mp3 and both are posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#june in line 21 June GNSO Working sessions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Agenda Background Information on the Inter�\Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP WG Charter
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2009

July 20, 2009

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting on Thursday, 23 July, the Agenda Background Information on the Inter�\Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP WG Charter http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/irtp-b-presentation-23jul09.pdf is posted on pages http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/ and http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ and there are links to the document in the agendas online http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-23july09.shtml https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_23_july_2009 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G��ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Expressions of Interest Sought for Bulk Transfer of Registrations
by Glen de Saint Géry July 19, 2009

July 19, 2009

Http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17jul09-en.htm Expressions of Interest Sought for Bulk Transfer of Registrations 17 July 2009 As the result of the recent de-accreditation of registrar Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd. ("Lead Networks"), ICANN is seeking expressions of interest from ICANN-accredited registrars that might wish to assume sponsorship of the gTLD names that were previously managed by Lead Networks. This request for expressions of interest is made pursuant to the De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure posted at http://www.icann.org/processes/registrars/de-accredited-registrar-transitio…<http://icann.org/processes/registrars/de-accredited-registrar-transition-pr…>. The de-accredited registrar managed approximately 70-80,000 registrations in dot-com and dot-net, and was accredited in no other gTLDs. Escrowed registration data is available for the sponsored registrations and is believed to be complete (including registrant, administrative, technical, and billing contact data, as well as nameservers and expiration dates). ICANN-accredited registrars who wish to be considered as potential recipients of the bulk transfer should be in good standing with regard to all ICANN-obligations and submit an Expression of Interest, using the form available at http://www.icann.org/en/processes/registrars/eoi-bulk-transfer-lead-17jul09…<http://icann.org/en/processes/registrars/eoi-bulk-transfer-lead-17jul09-en.…> [DOC, 37K], by no later than 23:00 UTC on Thursday, 23 July 2009. ICANN reserves the right to entertain any or none of the statements of interest submitted in response to this request and to select or approve a bulk-transfer recipient outside this process. Registrar questions and submissions should be submitted by email to mike.zupke(a)icann.org<mailto:mike.zupke@icann.org>. Customers of Lead Networks should refer to ICANN's posted announcement at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17jul09-en.htm<http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17jul09-en.htm> for registrant FAQs. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Conference Details JULY 23, 2009--16:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 18, 2009

July 18, 2009

Dear All, Please find the dial-in details for the GNSO Council call on Thursday, 23 July 2009 at 16:00 UTC. Other times may be found at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html Participant passcode: COUNCIL Please let me know if you need the operator to call you. The agenda is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-23jul09.shtml and on the Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_23_july_2009 the motions before Council are posted at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_july_motions The dial-in numbers can also be found on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?call_in_numbers Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: COUNCIL For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0044-22-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0044-22-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
by Tim Ruiz July 16, 2009

July 16, 2009

An *interest group* does not necessarily make a constituency, at least in my opinion. gTLD registries contracted to ICANN is a consituency, City/Geo gTLD registries is an interest group that is a subset of the gTLD registries constituency and does not constitute a *new* constituency. Non-commercial users is a constituency. Non-commercial users who have a special interest in security and safety is an interest group that is a subset of that constituency and does not *need* a new constituency to express those interests. I don't have a problem with new constituencies but if the Board is not cautious about what it allows we will have a complicated mix of constituencies representing narrow special interests and none of us will ever get anything done efficiently. This not about making it *difficult* to add constituencies. It is about doing it right. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thu, July 16, 2009 9:20 am To: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> I fully understand the complications of adding new constituencies to SGs but making the barrier high does not sound like a way to encourage openness for new interest groups to participate. Moreover, I think that approach would be contrary to the Board approved recommendations. In fact, I believe those recommendations establish a goal of making it easier to establish new constituencies. I don't think it is wise for us to work against the Board recommendations without further consultation with the SIC. I don't mean to suggest that all the recommendations are perfect and should not be challenged but I think we should deal with any instances where some think that might be he case in an appropriate manner. At the Board's direction, Staff has encouraged the formation of new constituencies and several organizations have expressed interest. I think it sends mixed signals to those groups if the Council is sending messages that are opposite to what the Board and Staff are sending. Rather than trying to make it difficult for new constituencies to be added, I think a more appropriate focus would be to explore ways in which new stakeholders with common interests can be effectively integrated into the SGs. I believe that we already solved the biggest problem with regard to new constituencies by disconnecting constituencies from the election of Council seats. Assuming that issue is solved, we should focus on how to provide clear and open ways for new players to get involved in SGs in a way that fairly includes them not just in WGs but also in SG influence of Council responsibilities of managing the policy development process. I personally think that we have to be careful of the perception that we are trying to entrench the influence of incumbents in the GNSO. The risk of capture was one that was identified when the original constituency model was developed and it will always be something that should be avoided. I am not making any judgment about whether it is a problem now or not, but I think we can all agree that we want to avoid any SG being captured by a subset of interests in a particular category of stakeholders. Tim is correct that the main focus should be at the WG level and we have opened that up already even before the WG model is more fully developed. But I don't think we should leave the impression with new groups that want to organize into constituencies (or interest groups) that it will be difficult for them to meaningfully be a part of the policy management responsibilities that will happen at the Council level via SGs. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Terry L Davis, P.E. > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:45 AM > To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council ' > Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin' > Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al > > > Tim > > I very much share your concerns with the creation of new > constituencies and the associated disruptions necessary to > accommodate them. As you said, the threshold needs to be > extremely high. > > Take care > Terry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:21 AM > > To: GNSO Council > > Cc: Bruce Tonkin > > Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al > > > > > > Some personal thoughts not vetted with the RrC: I think the bar for > > new constituencies should be set fairly high. One of the > main puposes > > of the restructuring is to focus the actual policy work > within the WG > > model, and less at the Council level. > > > > Do backend registry service providers (not contracted with ICANN) > > really need to be represented through membership in any new or > > existing constituency? Or are their likely interests already well > > represented through the RyC and/or RrC? > > > > Do City/Geo gTLD operators truly represent interests unique > enough to > > be considered a consitituency? Or can there primary > interests already > > be well represented through membership in the existing RyC? > They may > > well represent a special interest group within the RyC, but > it seems > > unnecessary to form an entirely new constituency. > > > > Do users whose special interest is security or safety truly > represent > > a new constituency? Is there any valid reason why those users' > > interests cannot be dealt with in one of the existing User > > constituencies depending on whether they are commercial or > non-commercial? > > > > It seems dangerous and unnecessary to me to start splintering off > > special interest groups into their own constituencies. And > remember, > > anyone can participate in the PDP WGs, and under the new structure > > that should be a bigger concern than having your own > special interest > > represented on the Council. > > > > Regarding gTLD applicants, or entities intending to become > accredited > > as registrars, etc. Is there any reason they cannot be allowed as > > observers into the appropriate constituency until such time as they > > qualify to be members? > > > > I think that where we are seemingly headed right now with > regards to > > new constituencies is too complicated and ultimately unworkable. Th > > threshold needs to be extremely high. In fact, I think it would be > > difficult to identify an interest group that is cannot fit into an > > existing consituency AND is large enough to warrant its own. > > > > Tim > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] Registry Operators et al > > From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> > > Date: Wed, July 15, 2009 3:10 am > > To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Cc: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > > > > > > > > As I pointed out months ago on this list, there is a fundamental > > disconnect in two significant GNSO changes: > > a) the bicameral model > > b) new constituencies. > > > > The bicameral model compromise thrashed out last summer was an > > agreement between the existing constituencies who all > neatly fit into > > the two Houses. > > The subsequent belief that new constituencies are needed > has exposed > > the impossibility of the bicameral compromise: they do not fit. > > > > Trying to fit supply-related constituencies to the > user-related House > > introduces such conflict and dilution that it brings the very > > credibility of ICANN into question. > > > > There are solutions: > > a) change the Houses to be Supply-side and User-side > > b) abandon new Constituencies > > c) abandon the bicameral approach and remove contract > parties from the > > GNSO leaving their main ICANN involvement as bilateral negotiators > > (and as participants in GNSO working groups) > > > > I suggest none of these solutions has universal appeal. > > > > Philip > > > > > > > >

3 2

Charter Motion for IRTP-B PDP
by Gomes, Chuck July 16, 2009

July 16, 2009

I second the motion by Tim Ruiz to approve the charter for the IRTP-B PDP. Chuck

1 0