January 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Call for participation in the Affirmation Reviews Requirements Drafting Team
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Jan '10

10 Jan '10

This is a call for participation in the drafting team to discuss the Affirmation Reviews Requirements. At the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 7 January, it was agreed that the Council provide comments to the discussion draft that addresses the requirements and implementation processes for the reviews called for in the Affirmation of Commitments. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev (See below for full text) - The drafting team is to select a lead person for coordination purposes - Suggestions to be provided to the Council for discussion at the Council meeting on 28 January 2010 - Drafting team should provide first draft within a week - 14 January 2010 - Mailing list gnso-arr-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-arr-dt@icann.org> (arr = Affirmation Reviews Requirements; dt=drafting team) - Public Archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-arr-dt/ Current Volunteers: Olga Cavalli - NCA - GNSO Council vice chair William Drake - NCSG Chuck Gomes - RySG - GNSO Council chair Caroline Greer - RySG Please inform the GNSO Secretariat if you would like to be added to the drafting team mailing list. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev Explanation/Background: ICANN is publishing today for public comment a discussion draft that addresses the requirements and implementation processes for the reviews called for in the Affirmation of Commitments The Affirmation of Commitments contains specific provisions for periodic review of ICANN's key objectives. These reviews are to be performed by review teams composed of volunteer community members representative of the relevant ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, as well as independent experts. The paper [PDF, 620K] http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-propo… posted for public consultation presents a discussion draft to address the Affirmation review requirements; it describes: *The Affirmation requirements for reviews *The proposed methodology for conducting the reviews *The preliminary activities (such as the establishment of the review Teams and others) *The timeline of the preparatory activities and of the first review *A draft Terms of Reference for the first review Inputs are sought from the community on the full set of proposals contained in this paper. The public consultation will remain open till the end of January, 2010. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 7 January 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Jan '10

08 Jan '10

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 7 January, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20100107.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: ccNSO update
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Jan '10

07 Jan '10

Forwarded On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Ad-hoc Study Group on Wildcards The ccNSO is setting up an Ad-hoc Study Group on Wildcards and is now calling for volunteers to this group. The Study Group is set up on the background of a request from the ICANN board to provide a report on mechanisms that could be employed to ensure that wildcards at the top level effectively are prohibited. The Study Group is therefore meant to provide an overview of the use and need of wildcarding at the top level and, if considered appropriate, advise on further actions. The group is expected to have submitted its final report no later than at the ICANN meeting in Brussels. The ccNSO Council has appointed Young-Eum Lee (.kr) and Ondrej Filip (.cz) to co-chair this group. For further information, please see the Study Group's Purpose and Scope of Activities: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/wildcardwg-purpose-05jan10-en.pdf Also see attached file.

1 0

RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] GNSO - and policy related to GTLDs
by Mike Rodenbaugh 06 Jan '10

06 Jan '10

Thanks Avri. I agree there is an issue here, though I think Council is better off considering it wrt the upcoming vote re PDP on vertical integration, rather than having the PPSC add this to its burden, with its recommendation subject to further scrutiny by the Council anyway. So I copy the Council list for their consideration and any further comment. There is a large leap in the logic of the Issues Report re Vertical Integration (the portion Avri quotes below), which I cannot accept. Obviously the Bylaws provide that other SOs and ACs can recommend policy. Nowhere do they state that Staff may recommend policy. Re vertical integration, my understanding is that this is not merely an issue relating to new gTLD implementation, as it could/should affect existing registries as well. Therefore the issue is appropriate for a PDP, and indeed should be resolved that way, rather than via Staff recommendation. I guess the alternative is that Staff goes on with its unilateral decision-making process, and the Council can start a PDP at the same time, and if we come to supermajority consensus that differs from Staff's fiat, then our PDP recommendation would have to be implemented at that time. That likely would lead to a lot of large problems for ICANN. Certainly curious to hear other Councilor's thoughts on this issue, before our vote on the PDP. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:52 AM To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] GNSO - and policy related to GTLDs Hi, I am wondering whether there is an issue for the PDP work team in the following. In the Staff report on Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars > Page 17 of 38 > Author: Margie Milam >From http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf > The NCUC suggests that all policies adopted by ICANN affecting gTLDs must be approved by the GNSO. However, while the ICANN Bylaws grant the GNSO the right to recommend policies affecting gTLDs, such right is not exclusive, and policies may be recommended under the Bylaws by any of the advisory committees (34), including the GAC, ALAC, and SSAC. An example of a recent policy affecting gTLDs that was not recommended by the GNSO, is the policy to prohibit redirection and synthesized DNS responses by TLDs adopted by the ICANN Board on 26 June 200935, resulting entirely from an SSAC recommendation. Since the GNSO's approval is not required, resolving the vertical integration issue through the implementation processes that are currently underway instead of through a PDP would be consistent with the ICANN Bylaws. Footnote 34 > 34 For example, Bylaws Article XI Section 2.2(a) Section 6 relating to the SSAC states that the SSAC's responsibilities shall include: "to make policy recommendations to the ICANN community and Board." Bylaws Article XI Section 2.1(i) relating the GAC states that the GAC "may put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies."

1 0

GNSO Council Meeting agenda Thursday/Friday 7/8 January 2010 at 20:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 06 Jan '10

06 Jan '10

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday/Friday 7/8 January 2010 please find the agenda below. Please review the - Status updates http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-07jan10-en.htm - GNSO Project Status List at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Please note that two items have been added for discussion under Any Other Business 7.2.1 Draft Proposal for Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review Teams 7.3 Joint Meeting with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in Nairobi The call details will be resent in a separate email. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you and a very Happy New Year! Glen GNSO Council Agenda 7 January 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-07jan10-en.htm Wiki version: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_7_january_2010 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 20:00 UTC (see below and http://www.timeanddate.com for other times) (12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 10:00 HAST, 21:00 CET; 04:00 Hong Kong, 07:00 Melbourne Friday) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify Glen in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the following Council meetings per the new Council Operating Procedures: * 17 December meeting - Approved on 31 December 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-17dec09-en.htm Item 2: Issues Report regarding vertical separation of Registries and Registrars 2.1 Refer to Issues Report on Vertical Integration: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf 2.2 Overview of Issues Report (Margie Milam) http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/issues-report-summary-17dec09-en.pdf 2.3 Discussion 2.4 Information about the ICANN Consultation on New gTLD Registry Agreement on 7 January 2010 in Washington D.C.? (Margie/Kurt) 2.5 Next steps 2.5.1 Action regarding decision on whether or not to initiate a PDP - 28 Jan meeting? Item 3: Prioritization of GNSO work 3.1 Status Report (Olga) 3.2 Next steps? Item 4: The Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Implementation Working Team Final Report 4.1 Refer to report at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-implementation-working-team-re… 4.2 Brief overview of report (Bart Boswinkel) 4.3 Action item: The working team report recommends that the GNSO & ccNSO do policy work with regard to the following two issues related to single-character IDN top level names: 1) selection of scripts for which single character IDN TLDs should be allowed; 2) method for allocation of single character IDN TLDs. 4.3.1 Discussion 4.3.2 Volunteers for working with ccNSO volunteers to develop a draft charter? Item 5: Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy - Implementation Report 5.1 Refer to http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-14dec09-en.pdf 5.1.1 Staff Presentation - Craig Schwartz http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-gnso-agp-slides-07jan10-e… 5.2 Action Items 5.3 Discussion Item 6: Status updates 6.1 Items of interest to the GNSO from the ccNSO (Olga Cavalli/Han Chuan Lee) 6.2 Other? 6.3 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.? Status updates http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-07jan10-en.htm Item 7: Any Other Business (AOB) 7.1 Staff update on plans to ensure safety and security in Nairobi 7.2.1 Draft Proposal for Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review Teams http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-propo… published at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26dec09-en.htm 7.2.1.1 Brief review of the proposal 7.2.1.2 Should the Council submit comments on behalf of the GNSO? If so, develop plan. Public Comments: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev 7.2.1.3 How should GNSO volunteers be identified as nominees for each of the four review teams? (Next steps?) 7.3 Joint Meeting with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in Nairobi 7.3.1 Discussion re. GAC proposed topics: 1) New gTLD policy implementation, including Expression of Interest (EoI); 2) Affirmation of Commitments (AoC). 7.3.2 Other possible topics to propose to the GAC? 7.3.3 Discussion re. how we should prepare for the joint GAC/GNSO session. Item 8: The updated GNSO Project Status List (formerly Pending Action Item List) is at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 8.1 Questions/comments? Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); d. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; e. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and f. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: a. Initiate a policy development process; b. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; c. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maui, Hawaii UTC -10+0DST 10:00 California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+0DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+0DST 15:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-2+1DST 13:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 20:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 07:00 next day -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2010, 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

New AOB agenda item for 7 Jan
by Gomes, Chuck 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

I just received a message from Janis Karklins regarding the joint GAC/GNSO meeting in Nairobi confirming the 5-6 pm slot on Sunday. He also proposed the following two topics for discussion: 1. New gTLD policy implementation, including EoI 2. AoC I know that we are already past our deadline for agenda finalization, but I believe that would should initiate discussion on this on 7 Jan. There will be no action other than discussion regarding the following: 1) how we feel about the two proposed topics; 2) whether we have any other topics we want to suggest; 3) how should we proceed in preparing for the session with the GAC. Glen - Please add the following to the 7 Jan agenda under AOB: 7.3 Joint Meeting with the GAC in Nairobi 7.3.1 Discussion re. GAC proposed topics: 1) New gTLD policy implementation, including EoI; 2) AoC. 7.3.2 Other possible topics to propose to the GAC? 7.3.3 Discussion re. how we should prepare for the joint GAC/GNSO session. Thanks, Chuck

6 6

PEDNR and IRTP-B Reports
by Tim Ruiz 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

Sorry to be past the deadline for these. I was on holiday until today, and in fact did not make the calls for either PEDNR or IRTP-B that were scheduled for today. The updates below exclude events on today's calls: PEDNR Following the ICANN meeting in Seoul, ICANN Staff continued to gather information for the registrar survey which is intended to help inform the deliberations of the Working Group. The survey reviews current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. The final results have now been posted at https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/ and were on the agenda to be discussed by the group on today's call. Following the finalization of the registrar survey, the Working Group will need to review the results in further detail to determine how these may potentially influence its response to the charter questions. IRTP-B The IRTP Part B Working Group held an open Working Group meeting in Seoul at which it reviewed the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. Their goal was to determine whether they could devise possible modifications in response to Question A in their charter, “whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed.” The Working Group also solicited public comment on the issues the group addresses. The comment period closed in October, and the group has reviewed the comments received (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/). The Working Group will now turn its attention to the Constituency / Stakeholder Group Statements it has received. Tim

1 0

Draft AoC Review Teams Proposal Summary
by Gomes, Chuck 02 Jan '10

02 Jan '10

Attached is my personal summary of the ICANN Draft Proposal for AoC Review Teams. I welcome all to review it and correct any inaccuracies. It appears to me that the Council has two possible action items regarding this both of which are time sensitive: 1. Decide whether we want to submit comments from the Council and, if so, develop a plan for doing that in our 7 Jan meeting. Note that comments are due the end of January. 2. Develop a plan for identifying volunteers to nominate for each of the four review teams. Because the Accountability & Transparency Review will start early in 2010, we should start work on this right away. Glen - Please add the following under AOB for our 7 Jan meeting: 7.2.1 Draft Proposal for AoC Review Teams 7.2.1.1 Brief review of the proposal 7.2.1.2 Should the Council submit comments on behalf of the GNSO? If so, develop plan. 7.2.1.3 How should GNSO volunteers be identified as nominees for each of the four review teams? (Next steps?) All - Please review the attached file and the two reference documents named at the beginning of the document. Chuck

3 4