October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Staff analysis of WHOIS Proxy and Privacy Abuse Study RFP responses
by Liz Gasster Oct. 11, 2010

Oct. 11, 2010

All, Attached please find staff's analysis of the Proxy and Privacy "Abuse" study based on responses received from independent researchers to the RFP we previously published. We would be glad to answer any questions or provide additional information. The analysis will be posted tomorrow and may be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/. Thanks, Liz

2 2

FW: Correction - Councillor elections - Registries Stakeholder Group
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 11, 2010

Oct. 11, 2010

Forwarded From: David W. Maher CORRECTION Dear Glen: This is notification from the GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group that we have elected the following as our Councillors for two year terms, replacing Chuck Gomes and Edmon Chung, whose terms will expire at the end of the ICANN meeting in December: Jeff Neuman (North America) Ching Chiao (Asia) Please let me know if you have any questions. David David W. Maher Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group Senior Vice President - Law & Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry

1 0

FW: Letter from the Registries Stakeholder Group
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 11, 2010

Oct. 11, 2010

Wearing my RySG Councilor hat, here is a letter that the RySG sent to the Board regarding concerns we have about the Board's action to form its own Data Consumer Protection Working Group as well as its apparent support for unilaterally changing Whois requirements in a top-down manner. Chuck From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@pir.org] Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 2:02 PM To: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org Cc: rod.beckstrom(a)icann.org; Gomes, Chuck; diane.schroeder(a)icann.org Subject: Letter from the Registries Stakeholder Group Dear Peter: Attached to this message is a letter from the Registries Stakeholder Group of the ICANN GNSO regarding resolution 2.10 passed by the ICANN Board on September 25, 2010 with respect to the Board's action items on "Searchable Whois". We would appreciate it if this letter could be made available to the entire Board. Best regards David David W. Maher Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group Senior Vice President - Law & Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry 1775 Wiehle Ave, #200 Reston, VA 20190 USA (v) +1-312-876-8055 (f) +1-312-876-7934 http://www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

2 4

FW: Councillor elections - Registries Stakeholder Group
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 11, 2010

Oct. 11, 2010

Forwarded From: David W. Maher Dear Glen: This is notification from the GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group that we have elected the following as our Councillors for two year terms, replacing Chuck Gomes and Edmon Chung, whose terms have expired: Jeff Neuman (North America) Ching Chiao (Asia) Please let me know if you have any questions. David David W. Maher Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group Senior Vice President - Law & Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

1 0

Notice of New Registry Service posted
by Francisco Arias Oct. 9, 2010

Oct. 9, 2010

ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on a request from Telnic to allow allocation of numeric-only domains. Information on the proposal can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2010012 Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry services proposal to registryservice at icann.org, this is not notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry Services Evaluation Process can be found at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/ Best regards, __ Francisco Arias gTLD Registry Technical Liaison ICANN Office: +1 310.578.8677 Mobile: +1 310.880.6112 Skype: farias555 PGP fingerprint: FE95 C7E7 36C7 A039 94BB C781 FD75 BB9D C55F 51B5

1 0

RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6
by Mary Wong Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

Speaking personally as a participant in the Rec 6 CWG, my puzzlement over the Board's resolution arose in relation to the language where it read "not inconsistent with the existing PROCESS" (emphasis added). Since the CWG was cognizant that its work should be within the framework of existing GNSO POLICY (i.e. Rec. 6 & related Principles etc.) - and I don't believe anything we recommended went outside of this policy framework - I read the Board language to mean, specifically, the objection process relating to MAPO issues as outlined in AGB v4. It seemed to me that the main concern the Board had was what Bruce outlined in his email, viz. the manner in which the Board would ultimately discharge its responsibility for new gTLD decisions. The current AGB process outsources the objection process management and appointment of external experts to the Int'l Center for Expertise (ICE) of the ICC (which some members of the CWG disagreed with). In addition, within the CWG there was fairly extensive discussion over whether the experts appointed should recommend EITHER (1) only that the objection in question is well-founded in international law; or (2) go further and add a recommendation that, as a result of this finding, the string in question should NOT be approved by the Board. The current AGB language on this specific question is not entirely clear, and can be read to indicate that the Board will, without more investigation/discussion, accept the decision of the experts as final. So when the resolution simply reads "not inconsistent with the existing process", I'd guess that many other members of the ICANN community (and not just me) would be concerned as to what the Board considers "process" in the AGB. If "process" simply means "we're going to stick with the ICC as service provider" and/or even "we think the experts should recommend the outcome (and not just the legal implications) of the application", that may be one thing; if, however, "process" was intended to mean also that the Board will accept, without further enquiry (e.g. obtaining a second expert opinion if warranted), the expert's advice, that could be more problematic. In any event, though, and like Chuck, I don't personally believe any of the CWG recommendations were against either existing GNSO policy or AGB-recommended process - I think the recommendations sought to clarify existing ambiguities in the AGB instead. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> To:<cgomes(a)verisign.com> CC:<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: 10/8/2010 12:09 PM Subject: RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 Good point, that could get us all into a lengthy debate. So perhaps at this point we just agree that AGv4 reflects current policy and anything not consistent with that would not be implemented or would be referred to Council for further consideration. I am encouraged by the Board's position on these remaining issues as it appears they are saying we are at the deadline for considering changes for the first round and work going forward will be focused on finalizing the AG and getting resources in place and ready to go. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" > Date: Fri, October 08, 2010 7:56 am > To: , "Bruce Tonkin" > , > , "Council GNSO" > > > Tim, > > What do you mean by 'current policy'? Do you mean the current version > of the guidebook (AGv4)? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com > > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:47 AM > > To: Bruce Tonkin; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > > > > > > Thank you Bruce. I took the Board's instructions regarding rec6 to > mean > > (or to also mean) those recs not inconsistent with the current policy. > > > > Tim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Bruce Tonkin" > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:17:22 > > To: Council GNSO > > Subject: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > Reading the various discussions on the Council list, it appears that > > the > > GNSO believes that the Board dismissed or disagreed with the work from > > the working group on recommendation 6. > > > > The Board resolution stated; > > > > "The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a > > difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these > > recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important > > issue for the past three years. > > > > The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program > > rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the > > determinations of experts regarding these issues. > > > > The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not > > inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before > > the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to > > resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for > > further guidance as required." > > > > > > I interpreted that as saying that the Board broadly agreed with the > > direction of most of the recommendations from the working group. The > > outcomes of which will be seen in the next draft of the guidebook. > e.g > > no longer using the term MAPO. > > > > The only clear disagreement was using the Board of 21 people to > > directly > > try to interpret international law and act as some form of dispute > > panel > > on matters relating to recommendation 6. Most of the Board, including > > me, has no such legal training that would be needed to do that. The > > Board is not the supreme court. Instead we prefer to use a panel of > > experts (e.g judges) that are familiar with international law to reach > > a > > judgement. Ultimately the Board can over-rule that judgement as a > last > > resort (and there are various mechanisms of appeal available for this > - > > such as reconsideration requests, IRP panels etc). > > > > Anyway I would be interested to hear how the GNSO has interpreted the > > Board resolution so that misunderstandings can be cleared up. > > > > In terms of any special papers - from my recollection we only had the > > GNSO paper to read. So you already have the document that we relied > > on. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu

1 0

RE: [council] Kurt Question
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

Seems that the Board should have asked for a release candidate in conjunction with the recent resolutions. Perhaps that is the intent, with the few more or less clean up items that were noted. At least I certainly hope so. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Kurt Question > From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > Date: Fri, October 08, 2010 12:52 am > To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, Council GNSO > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Thanks Bruce. Very firm. I like it. > > However, it is all in how you look at it. > > The staff can certainly put something forward that they may consider "final" and yes the Board may not approve it. However, the staff could still have thought that they were "final". > > My question was to Kurt, and therefore staff, in that, does he believe that the next version will be the one they expect the Board to sign off on or will it be sent back for public comment. > > A legitimate question given staff's history of announcing that they expect future drafts every time they have released one. > > A response would be appreciated. > > Adrian Kinderis > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 3:50 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Kurt Question > > > Hello Adrian, > > > >> Does that mean there will be others and the next won't be "final"? > > It will be final when the Board approves it. Until then it is always a > draft. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

Good point, that could get us all into a lengthy debate. So perhaps at this point we just agree that AGv4 reflects current policy and anything not consistent with that would not be implemented or would be referred to Council for further consideration. I am encouraged by the Board's position on these remaining issues as it appears they are saying we are at the deadline for considering changes for the first round and work going forward will be focused on finalizing the AG and getting resources in place and ready to go. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, October 08, 2010 7:56 am > To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Bruce Tonkin" > <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, > <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Council GNSO" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Tim, > > What do you mean by 'current policy'? Do you mean the current version > of the guidebook (AGv4)? > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com > > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:47 AM > > To: Bruce Tonkin; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > > > > > > Thank you Bruce. I took the Board's instructions regarding rec6 to > mean > > (or to also mean) those recs not inconsistent with the current policy. > > > > Tim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:17:22 > > To: Council GNSO<council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Subject: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > Reading the various discussions on the Council list, it appears that > > the > > GNSO believes that the Board dismissed or disagreed with the work from > > the working group on recommendation 6. > > > > The Board resolution stated; > > > > "The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a > > difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these > > recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important > > issue for the past three years. > > > > The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program > > rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the > > determinations of experts regarding these issues. > > > > The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not > > inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before > > the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to > > resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for > > further guidance as required." > > > > > > I interpreted that as saying that the Board broadly agreed with the > > direction of most of the recommendations from the working group. The > > outcomes of which will be seen in the next draft of the guidebook. > e.g > > no longer using the term MAPO. > > > > The only clear disagreement was using the Board of 21 people to > > directly > > try to interpret international law and act as some form of dispute > > panel > > on matters relating to recommendation 6. Most of the Board, including > > me, has no such legal training that would be needed to do that. The > > Board is not the supreme court. Instead we prefer to use a panel of > > experts (e.g judges) that are familiar with international law to reach > > a > > judgement. Ultimately the Board can over-rule that judgement as a > last > > resort (and there are various mechanisms of appeal available for this > - > > such as reconsideration requests, IRP panels etc). > > > > Anyway I would be interested to hear how the GNSO has interpreted the > > Board resolution so that misunderstandings can be cleared up. > > > > In terms of any special papers - from my recollection we only had the > > GNSO paper to read. So you already have the document that we relied > > on. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

The new gTLD issues are related to GNSO specific policy. I do not believe it was appropriate for a CWG to self form to deal with what it chose to call an implementation issue any more than it was for the Board to do the same thing with the IRT. At least with the latter the Board eventually sent it back to where it should have been dealt with in the first place, the GNSO. So I was pleased to see the Board response to the policy changes proposed by the MAPO CWG. If we continue down a path of allowing and even supporting such out of band efforts, then eventually such out of band CWGs will become the norm and used by SGs, ACs, etc. to get their pet issues on the table without going through the accepted processes. Setting policy in that manner is not provided for anywhere in ICANN's bylaws, and I think for good reason. As Allen points out, the GNSO policy development process allows for participation of all in the community in its WGs. The current CWG efforts have not been to deal with some etherial, non-policy related issues. They are being used to attempt to take a short cut around the established GNSO proceses. IMHO, both the ALAC and the GAC are no longer content with having an Advisory role within the community, and perhaps they never were, but that's where we are at. If that is going to change I would like it to be a frank, open, and direct discussion and not as a result of an unintended imprimatur by the GNSO. If we stick solely to what Bill has suggested in regards to this recent ALAC request, that may be fine in this instance, but I am concerned about the tone and implications of the entire message from them and would not want to imply that we agree with any other part of it. And as I said earlier, I think some consideration should be given to whether separate inquiries would be better. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf > yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, > reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 11:49 am > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > > > > I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is > > > "It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly > operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this > would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the > ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better > and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus > built policy processes in ICANN." > > I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this > note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but with > many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the Bylaws give > the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy Development > Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its outcomes are subject > to very special Board treatment. With the current working group model > that still gives others (both affiliated with AC/SOa or not) the ability > to participate. > > But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an > interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working group > are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved by the > GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable. I note > that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think clearly > meant the terms in their most general sense. > > Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent > cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to continue to > use such models when and where it seems to be advantageous. The > alternative to the direction indicated by the sentence is that the GNSO > or the GNSO Council refuse to participate in activities with the other > groups, or that the other groups not be allowed to undertake any > gTLD-related discussions on their own unless "led" by the GNSO. > I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward. > > I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO Council. > It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the price to pay > for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off. > > Alan > > > At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > Well Bill, if that was all it > was about that might be true. But the > second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly > indicates > a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how > we > do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's > decisions > is one thing, extending it beyond that is another. > > Tim > >

7 7

Board review of Papers
by Adrian Kinderis Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

I won't ask this question Chuck but it may pay to get it answered. How much time would the Board like to have papers prior to meetings/ retreats etc in order to ensure they are appropriately considered? It seems to be horribly inefficient to do all the work and not have it considered at the time. Adrian Kinderis

4 4