September 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

Why couldn't we proceed without the GAC? It's not that we don't want their participation, we do. But this is a joint effort and no one AC or SO should try to control what's discussed, or be allowed to. I agree that there is no point in spending time discussing the demand issue. I don't particularly like what Stephane is suggesting either (with all due respect). It seems a bit self-serving and not of much interest to the broader community, especially with all the other important issues that could be discussed. Considering what's been suggested so far, I would prefer Kristina's suggestion - malicious conduct. But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability. The Board has posted suggestions that I think fall short, and based on comments submitted regarding IIC and the NOI on the JPA I believe many if not most of the community believe they fall short regardless of where they are on whether or not the JPA should be extended. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 4:49 am To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Avri, Chuck, Agree with the both of you that this is not a particular useful topic to have at the ACSO meeting as it will just be a slugging match between the gTLD pros and cons. I don't see who would be able to give factual information on consumer demand for new gTLDs, so it would just be everyone voicing their opinion. That's exactly what has been happening for the last couple of years anyway so in what way would such a session be productive? Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions they were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any idea why the apparent change of attitude? As for possible topic choices, this session being an opportunity for a get-together between the various committees and organisations that make up ICANN and that ensure that ICANN can actually function, I would think it would be more useful to have folks discuss ways to improve the ICANN, ACs and SOs processes. As these are brainstorming sessions, I think we can be quite daring in our choices of topics. How about something like: "with volunteer burnout becoming a pressing problem, should ICANN look into remuneration possibilities for AC and SO council and excom members?" I'm sure most people would be against this (I certainly am), but it would give people an opportunity to explain why and what their take on being involved in the ICANN process is. Just an idea... Stéphane Le 02/09/09 00:21, « Avri Doria » <avri(a)acm.org> a écrit : > > Hi, > > while not the same words, pretty much what i said. > but i promised to report it in a neutral manner. > > GAC is being rather insistent. > they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting. > > the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a > Monday > unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them. > > i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and > said so. > but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be > cancelled. > > a. > > > On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >> Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to >> one >> side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we >> started in the New gTLD PDP process? >> >> Chuck >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM >>> To: Council GNSO >>> Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting >>> for Seoul was discussed. >>> >>> The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a >>> topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. >>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush >>> -18aug09-en.pdf >>> >>> Specially based on the following sentence: >>> >>> "The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has >>> not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs >>> provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be >>> outweighed by the potential harms." >>> >>> So the topic would be: >>> >>> Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential >>> benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the >>> potential harms >>> >>> We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs >>> and ACs before next week. >>> >>> I have also reported this under the status section of the >>> Agenda for this week. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >> >

4 4

FW: PPSC-WTs updates for Council
by Marika Konings Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

For your information, please find below the updates of the PPSC Work Teams. With best regards, Marika ------ Forwarded Message From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:42:38 +0200 To: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Conversation: PPSC-WTs updates for Council Subject: PPSC-WTs updates for Council Avri, please find below the updates for the PDP-WT and the WG-WT. With best regards, Marika =========== 8. 7. 1. Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) The PDP-WT is finalizing its discussions on the 'proposal review and voting threshold' stage (stage two out of five), and is expected to start discussions shortly on stage three 'Work Phase'. A first draft of the the recommendations for the 'planning and initiation' stage (stage one out of five) has been circulated to the WT for review and discussion at the next meeting. 8. 7. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT Staff has provided a first draft of the Charter Guidelines for review by the WG-WT. The WG-WT has started reviewing this document, but had to cancel its most recent meeting due to lack of attendance. Staff is currently working on a first draft of the Working Group Guidelines Document for review by the WG-WT. ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

RAP-WG interim report for Council
by Mike Rodenbaugh Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@afilias.info] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 11:23 AM > To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com > Subject: RE: Reminder on reports > > Hi, Mike. If a RAPWG update is needed, I suggest: > > * * * > The topics of Cybersquatting, Malware/Botnet Control, Contract > Uniformity, Front-Running, and Phishing/Spam/Malware have been > assigned to subgroups of volunteers, who are writing background data > and statements; these will become sections of the WG's Initial Report. > Wikis have been set up, where each subgroup is developing its content. > A full list of topics for forthcoming discussion is in the latest > "RAPWG Abuse Categories and Types" > document at: > https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_work ing_group > > There is a scope discussion of whether or not the RAPWG should, > because of past GNSO efforts and the six WHOIS study questions that > were recently commissioned, leave WHOIS topics off its list of > registration abuses for major examination. > The WG Chair, the WG Liaison, and the GNSO Council Chair and > Vice-Chair are currently discussing this issue. > > * * * > > All best, > --Greg > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:39 AM > To: gaaron(a)afilias.info > Subject: FW: Reminder on reports > > Hey Greg, anything in particular you would like to tell Council this > week? > > Thanks, > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:53 AM > To: Chuck Gomes; Jeff Neuman; Liz Gasster; Tim Ruiz; > mike(a)rodenbaugh.com Rodenbaugh > Subject: Reminder on reports > > Hi, > > Just a reminder that all WG, WT, and DT are requested to get reports > iseverl adays before the meeting. > > Please pass the message on to any chairs you are working with and to > the supporting team that is working with them. > > thanks > > a. > >

1 0

Fwd: new bylaws
by Avri Doria Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Begin forwarded message: > Hi Avri, > The updated Bylaws are now posted-- > http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-27aug09.pdf > > Margie

2 1

Council Transition Plan for Bicameral Council Seats
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

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

1 0

FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

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.

1 0

WHOIS misuse and misrepresentation studies -- reminder -- your input is welcome but needed quickly
by Liz Gasster Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

All, Just a friendly reminder that if you have comments or concerns about these draft study terms of reference (which will become the basis for RFPs to solicit costs and feasibility that we will release to the public), please provide them ASAP, but no later than Sept. 10. Some specific notes and caveats: 1. I am working with a consultant and we are still incorporating comments we've received, so these documents are subject to change (in addition to input you may still provide) 2. Again, specific questions we have are highlighted in the italicized boxed text, but you are free to offer comments on any aspect of these documents 3. When these are actually released, a cover note will be included, with specific comments and instructions for responding. Are there notes, explanation or comments that you think should be made clear or specified in addition to the background, goals, etc.? 4. How much time do you think we should give potential researchers to respond to the RFPs? Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Liz Gasster Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:02 AM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting All, I have been reaching out to various proponents of studies, and to candidates who might be helpful in providing study data, on a selected basis, to try to define the precise parameters of the terms of reference for RFPs to obtain costs and feasibility for various WHOIS study areas. You may recall that the Council, in asking for this work to be done at your open meeting in Mexico City, specifically invited staff to: "pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses. At any time, Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses." These discussions have been conducted pursuant to that invitation, they have been "one-off" discussions, and Glen happened to record and post this one because I asked her to schedule it. Other calls have also occurred. I did not post agendas or announce the calls, other than to the invitees of the calls. Please let me know if you would prefer that I handle these calls in a different way. Regarding the substance and status of WHOIS studies -- I have reformulated the categories of studies into the attached groupings. (Please see chart attached). Draft terms of reference for RFPs on the first two study areas, WHOIS "misuse" and WHOIS "misrepresentation" are also attached for your reference. I am currently seeking input on the questions highlighted in the italicized "boxed" text in the attached. If you have input to provide, please feel free to do so. We have not yet begun to prepare a document on "Proxy and Privacy Services". I had not intended to conduct a broad community-wide consultation at this stage. If the Council wants to provide input or solicit broader input now or at any time before RFPs are released, please let me know and I can of course accommodate that, noting that will delay the release of these requests. Regarding Study 4 on the attached (previously study #11) staff is currently thinking (though our thoughts could certainly change) that this study might be subsumed by the work of the SSAC and GNSO to study the feasibility of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data. Regarding study 5, we will be initiating the compilation of WHOIS service requirements in early September. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like further information, or if you would like me to alter my process in any way. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:21 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting I was unaware of it as well. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:55 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting > > > Hi, > > Just found this in the calendar. > Was this meeting announced? > Did it have an agenda? > > Was it an open meeting, as all GNSO meetings are unless specifically > closed over personal privacy concerns, or was it by invitation only? > > If I knew of this and it just did not register, I apologize, but I > really do not know what it was about. > > I will listen to the audio, but am looking for some context. > > http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-whois-20090810.mp3 > > thanks > > a. > >

1 0

WG Reports for IRTP Part B and PEDNR
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

----------------------------- IRTP Part B WG ----------------------------- Michele Nylon was selected as Chair of the WG and the Council will confirm the selection 3 Sept. We have had two calls and work on the list: -- We discussed background around the issues. -- Discussed and worked definitions. This is still ongoing. -- Discussed the two SSAC reports with help from Dave Piscatelo. The first was produced in 2005 and dealt with suggestions for a process for urgent return and resolution of a domain name after a fraudulent transfer. The second report deals with protecting domain names agains exploitation or misuse and focuses on high profile domains. -- Working on the Public Comment Announcement and Constituency Statement Template. -- Planned a F2F for Monday at 7am in in Seoul. -- Next call is 15 September 2009. ----------------------------- PEDNR WG ----------------------------- The questions posed in the charter have been submitted for public comment until 10 Sept. The WG has also sent requests for each constituency to respond. -- In response to the request for Staff to provide information on how current policies on expired names are enforced William McKelligott, ICANN Auditor for the Contractual Compliance Team provided this summary of a recent audit: "ICANN Compliance recently completed an audit of all registrar websites to establish if they were compliant with the Expired Domain Deletion Policy as it relates to fees charged to registered name holders for recovering domain names that have entered the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) (please refer to section 3.7.5.6 of the EDDP). A large number or registrars- close to 500 of them- posted information on their websites in relation to recovering domain names that are in RGP which either either did not mention fees or mentioned them but did not specify any amount (e.g., “fees will apply”). The EDDP requires registrars to post on their website the actual fees charged to registered name holders for recovering domain names that are in RGP. Compliance will be posting an advisory and reaching out to registrars in the very near future to clarify this requirement." Link to the full report: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/contractual-compliance-report-27… Other items: -- Discussed other data that might be helpful. -- Formed a Data Collection Sub-Team. It was scheduled to meet Wednesday but I believe that was postponed. -- Reviewed what further information / discussion is required to fulfil following requirements of PEDNR charter, such as current Registrar practices. -- Began review of Charter Question 1 - Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names. Questions were raised as to how to define what is adequate. -- Ongoing discussion on how to collect data to support scope of problem. -- Next call is 8 September 2009.

1 0

Update ccnso-idnpdpwg1
by Olga Cavalli Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Hi, what was missed in my previous update report was the briefing after the first ccnso-idnpdpwg1 working team conference call held last Monday. Here it is: ICANN staff will prepare a first draft Topic Paper by mid september, which will be reviewed by the working team. This first paper will be discussed among the working team and should be available for public comments by mid October. There will be a face to face meeting of the wt in Seoul. The final topic paper including comments should be ready by 20 November. Regards Olga *Backgound information for the WT and Topic Paper:* Issues Report IDN ccPDP ( * http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-issues-report-idn-ccpdp-02apr09.… *). This includes the issue paper of the joint GAC-ccNSO Working Group (which can also be found at: * http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09jul07.htm*) . The issues paper also defines the scope of this WG. Draft Initial Report of the IDNC WG. This is comparable to the Topic Paper as mentioned above. The document can be found at *http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm* ( it is a PDF document)

1 0

JIG Mailing list subscribers
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

Dear All, Please find the current subscribers to the joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN working group mailing list. GNSO Participants Avri Doria - GNSO Council chair Chuck Gomes - GNSO Council vice-chair Edmon Chung - gTLD Registries Terry Davis - Nominating Committee Appointee Stéphane van Gelder - Registrar ccNSO Participants Chris Disspain - ccNSO Council chair Zhang Jian ccNSO Staff Bart Boswinkel Kristina Nordstrom GNSO Policy Staff GNSO Secretariat Mailing list address: jig(a)icann.org Public archives may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig/ Thank you. Kind regards Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0