September 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Scheduling request for Seoul
by Rosette, Kristina Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

All, Based on a number of requests from IPC members, I write to request that the "working session" discussion of DAG3 occur on Sunday, not Saturday. The combined impact of travel time and time difference will make it very difficult for a number of IPC members to attend or to participate remotely if the session occurs on Saturday. I suspect that this problem is not unique to the IPC. Many thanks. K

1 0

FW: Statement of Interest attached
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

From: Mansourkia, Magnolia Hi Glen. Here you go, if there is any other info required for the statement that I have missed, please let me know and I'll add it in. Thanks much, Maggie

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

Thanks Avri. I know that new gTLD issues weigh heavy on everyones' minds and these issues will no doubt continue to be the focus of much of what goes on in Seoul. But accountability is also a long term issue that a significant portion of the community clearly feels has not been resolved. We need to begin getting organized across the ACSO structure to address it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Thu, September 03, 2009 10:03 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Several variants of the topic have been suggested. I have not brought the accountability topic back to the ACSO chairs yet. Will bring info back after out meeting later tonight (UTC). > Will the introduction of new gTLDs provide potential benefits to > consumers that will outweigh any potential harm? > > Which could also be phrased as a more general question: > > What are the remaining impediments to finalising the new gTLD > application process and what can be done to resolve them? > > Or a little more broadly still > > What are the remaining impediments to finalising the new gTLD and > IDN Fast Track processes and what can be done to resolve these issues? > a.

3 2

Fast Flux motion
by Marika Konings Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

Dear All, In order to inform your deliberations on the Fast Flux Final Report and the motion you have before you, I thought it might be helpful to share some background information on the deliberations of the FFWG and some points you might want to take into consideration when making a decision. 1) The report does not include any recommendations for new policy or changes to existing policies, but it does include 'recommended next steps'. When the group discussed these ideas for possible next steps, staff pointed out that all of these ideas would entail substantial further work by ICANN staff as well as the ICANN community as these ideas would need to be further worked out before being able to implement them. An attempt was therefore made to prioritize these in order to be able to present the GNSO Council with a top-two or three of ideas to pursue in the short term and leave the rest for a later point in time if those top-two/three ideas would not work out. Unfortunately, there was no clear consensus on such a top-two or three and as a result all of the ideas were included, albeit in order of importance. 2) As the resolve clauses are currently written in the proposed motion, there is little direction as to what is expected or what the next steps and expected timing is (e.g. 'encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or policy changes to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux'). It might be helpful to discuss clearer direction on what the expected next step(s) are (e.g. Organise a workshop at next ICANN meeting to encourage discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or policy changes to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux) and whether the proposed actions in the resolve clauses should be undertaken at the same time, or whether there is a sequence that should be followed, again taking into account that almost all of these resolve clauses will require further work and discussion by ICANN Staff as well as the ICANN Community. With best regards, Marika

2 3

FW: [council] FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion
by Mike Rodenbaugh Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

I agree with the RyC edits as friendly amendments, with one exception regarding the mandate to the RAP-WG. Since indemnification is an agreement, and the WG is examining in detail the various agreements in the registration chain, I would clarify and simplify this as follows: The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy and/or agreements empower Registries and Registrars to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux; I attach a redline reflecting this change as well. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:49 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion Importance: High On behalf of the RyC, I would like to propose the following amendments to Mike Rodenbaugh's Fast Flux motion. We hope they would be considered friendly but that is Mike's call. Note that the current wording of the motion is in italic font below and that I attached a red line version of the resolution part of the motion.. Chuck Gomes (A) "To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and/or policy changes to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux" Make a friendly amendment to change to: "...the development of best practices and/or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate..." Reasons: * The WG did not recommend any policy changes specific to fast-flux. The issue of domain name abuse in general is a completely separate and more complicated matter -- see (B) below. * The phrase "Industry solutions" were included in the relevant Final Report's Recommendations section -- but was dropped in the Resolution language for some reason. See (C) below for why Internet industry is a preferred option. * The creation of non-binding best practices is a good idea; awareness-raising and education are needed and in keeping with the RyC position. Such efforts could include the ccNSO or other relevant bodies. * The RyC supports best practices and encourages industry solutions by the wider Internet community, rather than further policy change discussions. (B) "To examine whether existing policy sufficiently empowers Registries and Registrars to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux, as a component of any future Registration Abuse PDP(s)" Make friendly amendment so as to read: "The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux." Reasons: * Make the referral explicit. The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) was specifically created to examine such abuse issues, and was an explicit outgrowth of the learning done in the FFWG. Core issues are now being examined in the RAPWG. * It is not agreed that GNSO policy can or should "empower" registries and registrars to mitigate illicit FF. * "of any future Registration Abuse PDP(s)" is poor wording. The GNSO has had several PDPs related to registration abuses -- such as domain tasting. FF is not related to any and all registration issues. * The current wording of the resolution implies that registries should be responsible for mitigating fast-flux (and by extension other abusive uses of domain names). (C) "To encourage staff, interested stakeholders, and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions and/or policy work" Suggest friendly amendment to remove the words "staff" and "and/or policy work." ICANN should not devote resources to the creation or maintenance of a fast-flux reporting tool. Reasons: * FF is an issue that ICANN is not well-suited to deal with on a practical level, FF is really outside of GNSO policy-making scope, and FF is not a core DNS security and stability issue within ICANN's mission. * Therefore spending ICANN funds is not relevant. * The Final Report points out that similar security issues are dealt with by interested parties outside of ICANN -- such as for phishing (APWG and PhishTank), botnets (ShadowServer and Conficker WG), and spam (Spamhaus and the SURBLs). * NOTE: Discussion about a "Fast Flux Data Reporting System" should be clear -- participation in such a tool was never discussed as something that should be mandated by policy. A Fast Flux Data Reporting System should not be equated with ICANN's WHOIS WDPRS reporting tool [http://wdprs.internic.net/ ] -- the WDPRS is a compliance tool related to existing contractual obligations that registrars and registrants must adhere to.

2 1

FW: [council] Fast Flux motion
by Mike Rodenbaugh Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

Thanks Marika for providing some further background, for those who haven't been able to read the report or its executive summary. I think you make good suggestion re the first recommendation, and that workshop should include also the 3d recommendation re FF Data Reporting. The 4th recommendation is just an expansion of the 1st, so can be included if there is time (or anyway will be included to some extent via discussion of the first). This should be scheduled so that others interested from the SSAC, ccNSO, etc. can attend. I agree with Avri that this level of detail need not go into the Council motion, but Staff can come back with a draft implementation plan fairly soon, along these lines. Do you agree that is a sensible way forward? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:17 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Fast Flux motion Dear All, In order to inform your deliberations on the Fast Flux Final Report and the motion you have before you, I thought it might be helpful to share some background information on the deliberations of the FFWG and some points you might want to take into consideration when making a decision. 1) The report does not include any recommendations for new policy or changes to existing policies, but it does include 'recommended next steps'. When the group discussed these ideas for possible next steps, staff pointed out that all of these ideas would entail substantial further work by ICANN staff as well as the ICANN community as these ideas would need to be further worked out before being able to implement them. An attempt was therefore made to prioritize these in order to be able to present the GNSO Council with a top-two or three of ideas to pursue in the short term and leave the rest for a later point in time if those top-two/three ideas would not work out. Unfortunately, there was no clear consensus on such a top-two or three and as a result all of the ideas were included, albeit in order of importance. 2) As the resolve clauses are currently written in the proposed motion, there is little direction as to what is expected or what the next steps and expected timing is (e.g. 'encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or policy changes to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux'). It might be helpful to discuss clearer direction on what the expected next step(s) are (e.g. Organise a workshop at next ICANN meeting to encourage discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or policy changes to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux) and whether the proposed actions in the resolve clauses should be undertaken at the same time, or whether there is a sequence that should be followed, again taking into account that almost all of these resolve clauses will require further work and discussion by ICANN Staff as well as the ICANN Community. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Draft Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

Dear All, The Draft Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition Can be directly viewed at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/bicameral-council-seat-transition-plan-03sep09… and has been posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ as well as on the agenda on the Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_03_sept_2009 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

> The topic seems to get more discussion at USA > hearings on the JPA, and IGF discussion forums Exactly. It is essential to get it out in a more open format within the community. > Part of the issue is defining what is meant by > accountability Agree. And that may be the primary discussion point to start with. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 5:32 pm To: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello Tim, > But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability. That would certainly be useful at some point. There have indeed been some proposals that were prepared by a President's advisory committee, but there hasn't really been an open community discussion on the topic at an ICANN meeting. The topic seems to get more discussion at USA hearings on the JPA, and IGF discussion forums under the topic of Internet Governance generally. Part of the issue is defining what is meant by accountability by the various parties raising that issue. Do they mean accountable to a Government or Governments, or do they mean accountability to the ICANN community - ie accountable to "members' in some way? Sometimes it seems to me that parties mean accountable to someone that they can influence :-) Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

RE: Council Transition Plan for Bicameral Council Seats
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

Thanks to Avri for pointing out some date errors in the document I sent yesterday. A corrected, redlined version is attached. Chuck ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Council Transition Plan for Bicameral Council Seats I would like to submit the attached draft plan for discussion in our Council meeting tomorrow under "Item 9: Schedule/Actions leading up and for Seoul". Chuck

2 3

RE: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

> I would not side-step taking on the question of > "accountability to governments" just because people > find it odious. Actually, I think that's a good > reason to take it on. It will no doubt be on the minds of the GAC, if they decide to participate. So defining what is meant by accountability by various stakeholders may be a good way to start the discussion. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Thu, September 03, 2009 5:19 am To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > > Hello Tim, > >> But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability. > > That would certainly be useful at some point. There have indeed been > some proposals that were prepared by a President's advisory committee, > but there hasn't really been an open community discussion on the topic > at an ICANN meeting. The topic seems to get more discussion at USA > hearings on the JPA, and IGF discussion forums under the topic of > Internet Governance generally. NCUC strongly favors making accountability the focus, inter alia for the reasons Bruce mentions. Moreover, it's probably a more effective counterproposal to the GAC than malicious conduct. > > Part of the issue is defining what is meant by accountability by the > various parties raising that issue. > > Do they mean accountable to a Government or Governments, or do they > mean > accountability to the ICANN community - ie accountable to "members' in > some way? Sometimes it seems to me that parties mean accountable to > someone that they can influence :-) Defining the topic narrowly will inevitably leave some parties feeling that their chief concerns about accountability are not being addressed. It would be better to have a structured discussion that addresses the different dimensions in turn. And in this context (probably this is a rather orthogonal view), given the larger global political debates---not only on JPA and in the IGF, but also in intergovernmental settings like CSTD/ECOSOC and the ITU (where the secretariat and quite a lot of governments are getting pretty aggressive about expanding its role in many aspects of Internet governance)---I would not side-step taking on the question of "accountability to governments" just because people find it odious. Actually, I think that's a good reason to take it on. On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: > I am sick and tired of the GAC throwing stones from a distance and > not getting their hands dirty. So let's suggest a topic on which they would feel compelled to get their hands dirty, and thrash it out. Best, Bill

3 2