December 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Amended Rec 6 motion
by Mary Wong 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

As discussed with some of you, here will be the amended version of the Rec 6 motion to be voted on: WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO’s) and Advisory Committee (AC’s) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law; WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010; AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community; RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO; RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group and Constituency provide feedback as soon as possible on the CWG's recommendations to the Council. 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 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

Motion for JAS WG charter extension
by Stéphane Van Gelder 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Rafik, Bill, I am unsure if you answered this or not so I apologize if this is a repost. Did you consider this as a FA? Thanks, Stéphane >> >> Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 12:41 >> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension >> >> Rafik/Bill, >> Do you consider this amendment friendly? >> Chuck >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de >> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:08 AM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension >> All, >> I'd like to amend the "Motion for JAS WG charter extension" as follows: >> Remove "Resolved 1. c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance;" >> Rationale: >> First, I'm convinced the community and ICANN have to be prepared how to manage any potential new gTLD auction profit. >> As usual in case profit is available one can expect many interested community groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new applicants are one group of it. In addition parts of the overall ICANN program could also profit from that fund (e.g. outreach program, DNS security etc.). >> So my reservations to this topic being covered by the JAS group only are: >> - it is a too large area for the JAS and would go far beyond their originally intended scope >> - there are lots of more urgent tasks for this WG as laid down in the new draft charter. Handling the potential auction profit is of lower priority on the timescale . >> - as per definition the JAS view is applicant oriented that would cause an imbalance >> As I pointed out in former e-mails the JAS could express the new applicants' general interest in taking part in the distribution of the potential auction profit. >> >> I suggest to initiate discussion on council level how to cover this topic separately and appropriately. >> >> I'm in agreement with all other items in the charter and would be happy if the amendment could be accepted as friendly . >> Save travels to Cartagena >> Wolf-Ulrich >> Von: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010 20:58 >> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich >> Betreff: regarding your amendment >> >> Hi Wolf-Ulrich, >> regarding your comment last time about JAS motion, I would like to know what are the reasons for asking to remove the 1.c . I think that we should find a better and constructive compromise.what do you think? >> Regards >> Rafik >

6 7

Friendly amendment to OSC/PPSC motion
by Mary Wong 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Dear colleagues, Wendy and I will withdraw our alternative motion on the OSC & PPSC charters, on the understanding that Chuck (as original proposer) and Jeff (as seconder of Chuck's original motion) accept the following language as a friendly amendment to Chuck's original motion: [skipping the WHEREAS clauses] RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, including expected deadlines for final delivery. RESOLVED FURTHER, a drafting team shall be established no later than 19 January 2011, to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010. 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 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

FW: URGENT: update from the CSG side about progression toward election process for V.Chair/House
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: Marilyn Cade Dear ICANN GNSO Secretariat/Glen: Update on the progression of an agreed process for V.Chair election/Non Contracted Party House - update from the CSG The leadership and their members have continued to work on a mutually agreed to process for this election. Unfortunately, time factors and the busy schedules have not allowed the conclusion of a mutually agreed to process. However, the CSG leadership is optimistic that a process can be agreed to, and thus the election can be resolved soon. We will also of course be in close communications with our sister SG and with the NCA in our House, Olga Cavalli, and are of course forwarding this communication. Please know that efforts continue to find time to address this. I will add on a personal note that busy schedules have overtaken us in some instances, but that we are all working toward a solution. My apologies for the delay. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair, CSG alternate from BC, and on behalf of the CSG leadership

1 0

Rec 6 motion: possible amendment
by Mary Wong 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Hello again, So as not to overly belabor the point or cause your Inboxes to overflow, would reformulating the motion along the following lines render it acceptable to those who were inclined to vote against it? Basically I added a Whereas clause and rewrote the problematic "endorsed" clause in the Resolved section: "WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committee (ACs) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law; WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010; WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community; AND WHEREAS, the role of the Council is to manage the cross-community process on behalf of the GNSO community and the Council notes that the CWG's implementation proposals have been produced in accordance with the group's Terms of Reference; RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO; RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group provide feedback as soon as possible to the CWG, in order to resolve outstanding questions regarding implementation of Recommendation 6 in a judicious manner, considering in particular those recommendations that received Full Consensus in the CWG. Thanks, 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 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

3 2

Revised GNSO Council motions for Wednesday 8 December
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Dear Council members, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting today, please review the motions posted on the Wiki pages: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions and also copied below. Please check the wording and motion 3 needs a seconder, or perhaps I have missed the second.. If so please resend your second for motions 3. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 1 a Amendment by Wolf Ulrich Knoben to the motion made by Rafik Dammak and seconded by Bill Drake for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN Board resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items. This paragraph has been removed in the amended version: c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance; Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states: the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support. Resolved: 1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives: a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement. b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered; c) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship. d) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship. e) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties. f) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding g) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated. i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages. 2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work. 1 b. Motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN Board resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items. Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Bill Drake With amendments approved in the 18 November Council meeting and before in italics: Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states: the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support. Resolved: 1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives: a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement. b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered; c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance; d) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship. e) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship. f) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties. g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated. i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages. 2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work. 2. Motion to Terminate The Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars. Made by: Stéphane van Gelder Seconded by: 1. Terry Davis 2. Andrei Kolesnikov Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas, the VI Working Group has published its Interim Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 9 November 2010, describing the results of the first phase of its deliberations; Whereas, the Working Group is unable to reach a consensus on any recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider with regard to vertical integration and cross-ownership between Registrars and Registries in time for the first round of new gTLD applications (Phase I); Whereas, in the absence of guidance from the GNSO Council, the ICANN Board has voted to allow new gTLD registries to own registrars, and has opted not to create new rules prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating new gTLD registries; With the publication of the Interim Report, the VI Working Group has suspended its activities pending further instructions from the GNSO Council; and Whereas, in light of these recent developments, the GNSO Council desires to terminate the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recognizes that, in light of these recent developments, there is no longer a need or desire to pursue further policy development activities with respect to this issue; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council formally ends the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the VI PDP Working Group is hereby disbanded. The GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP Working group in producing the Interim Report, and sincerely thanks the Co-Chairs, Mike O'Connor and Roberto Gaetano, for their leadership in this PDP. 3. Proposed motion on recommendations made recently by the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the draft AGB.) Made by: Mary Wong Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law; WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010; AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the ICANN Board and community; RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby endorses the CWG recommendations as representing. as far as possible, consensus among the various stakeholders in the ICANN community on effective mechanisms for the implementation of Recommendation 6. 4. Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Motion made by: Kristina Rosette Seconded by: Mike Rodenbaugh Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and desires to approve of the recommendations and proposals contained therein; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in the Final Report for improvements to the RAA; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the Final Report and approves of the Form of the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. Process A states: "1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO council (i.e., final form of this report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy. 2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement. 3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussion on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress. 4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback. 5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat step 4 as necessary. 6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. 7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form. 8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6." RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. 5. MOTION APPROVING THE DRAFT CHARTER OF THE JOINT DNS SECURITY AND STABILITY ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (DSSA-WG) Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Jaime Wagner WHEREAS, at their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting in June 2010 the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global domain name system (DNS); WHEREAS, this issue is considered to be of common interest to the participating Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others, and should be preferably undertaken in a collaborative effort; WHEREAS, the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO agreed to establish a Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG), in accordance with each organization's own rules and procedures and invite other AC's to liaise and engage with the DSSA-WG in a manner they consider to be appropriate; WHEREAS, a Drafting Team of the Chairs of the ccNSO, the ALAC, and the GNSO, along with interested representatives from those organizations, produced a Draft Charter and posted it for the review of the participating SOs and ACs on 15 November 2010 at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves this Draft Charter and encourages GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups, and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants of the DSSA-WG with demonstrated expertise in the objectives of the Draft Charter. 6. Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters. Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Jeff Neuman Whereas in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors (see - GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan) http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…; Whereas that framework included the formation of two Steering Committees - the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee - to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams designed to develop specific recommendations to implement specific aspects of the improvements; Whereas the Council intended the charters of the committees (and their attendant work teams) to be temporary and not to extend beyond the 2009 annual ICANN meeting without specific action by the Council; Whereas the Council has now twice extended the terms of those committees to allow the GNSO community implementation recommendations work to continue (see - http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm and http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10mar10-en.htm); Whereas the Council acknowledges the hard work of those work teams and notes that those committees and their teams are diligently continuing their work; RESOLVED, The Council extends the terms of the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee and their respective work teams as necessary through the San Francisco ICANN public meeting in March 2011. The Council directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify the specific targets and benchmarks for their work and to share that information with the Council by 19 January 2011. 7. Alternate Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters. Made by: Wendy Seltzer Seconded by: Rafik Dammak as amended by Mary Wong WHEREAS in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors (see - GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan): http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…; WHEREAS that framework included the formation of two Steering Committees - the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee - to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams designed to develop specific recommendations to implement specific aspects of the improvements; WHEREAS the OSC and PPSC charters expire at the Cartagena meeting; RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, with a view toward final delivery to the Council of any remaining work items so identified by no later than the San Francisco meeting. FURTHER RESOLVED, a Standing Committee to monitor implementation of GNSO Improvements shall be established no later than 19 January 2011. The Standing Committee will work with the Council to review and, if necessary, convene relevant work teams to refine and streamline, the effectiveness of GNSO Improvements on an ongoing basis. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Berard SOI revised as per Chuck Gomes
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: John Berard John Berard/Statement of Interest/December 2010 I am the founder of a communications consultancy called Credible Context and based in San Francisco, CA, USA. The firm is the culmination of a 35-year career in public relations at agencies large and small in New York, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. My clients are not defined by industry but by market need. I specialize in marketing communications that helps companies renew, reshape and re-emerge in existing and adjacent markets. My practice is rooted in the notion that in a media environment that is immediate, ubiquitous and unforgiving, effective communications must be linked to who you are. That is the credible context. In the past 12 months, as part of my broader portfolio of clients, I have worked with registrars (as part of my work with Momentous, parent company to multiple registrars and Pool.com<http://Pool.com>), registries (Neustar) and globally branded consumer and business-to-business companies for whom the web is either an essential platform or represents their only commercial presence. That is the current extent of my work, especially as it relates to ICANN, registries or registrars. I view myself, first-and-foremost, as a registrant and a business person. My small (less than 10 names) portfolio of domain names is registered through GoDaddy.com<http://godaddy.com/>. With regard to participation in communities other than ICANN, I am a member of the board of the Market Street Railway, the support organization for the vintage streetcars in San Francisco and a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

1 0

Board Data and Consumer Protection Working Group Report on Recommendations (7 December 2010)
by Bruce Tonkin 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Hello All, The report of the Board's Data and Consumer Protection Working Group is now available on the ICANN website, following its first and only official meeting on Friday afternoon 3 Dec 2010. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/consumer-protection/report-on-recomme ndations-07dec10-en.htm See below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Data and Consumer Protection Working Group Report on Recommendations 7 December 2010 On 5 August 2010 the Board asked the Board Governance Committee to assist in the formation of a Board Data and Consumer Protection Working Group (DCP-WG) to identify issues relating to the use of registry data and where registrant protection might be further explored or proposed policies might be introduced. The DCP-WG was formally established on 25 September 2010 to address data and consumer protection issues. The DCP-WG provides this report on its conclusions and recommendations. The report will be provided to the Board for consideration at its 10 December 2010 meeting in Cartagena, Colombia. DCP-WG Conclusions and Recommendations Searchable Whois, Referred to the DCP-WG on 25 September 2010: Searchable Whois: Refer to the Board Data Consumer Protection Working Group to study issues and provide information to the Board relating to access and privacy to develop recommendations for possible inclusion in the forthcoming version of the applicant guidebook. DCP-WG Response: The DCP-WG advises the Board that making searchable whois mandatory is a policy matter that would have to be referred to the GNSO, but we accept it being optional as proposed in current version of the Applicant Guidebook. We flag that there are consumer and data protection issues that could be raised through a searchable whois system. DCP-WG Charter Task 1: Fact Finding: Establishing what consumer protections associated with the collection and use of domain-name related data are currently planned to be included in the proposed new gTLD Registry contract. DCP-WG Response: Under the proposed Registry Operator Code of Conduct, at Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement in the current version of the Applicant Guidebook, there are consumer-protection provisions relating to limitations on the use of domain-name related data. These are currently subject to public comment. DCP-WG Charter Task 2: Fact Finding: Reviewing the status of work on determining the domain-name related data collected and the uses to which it is put. DCP-WG Response: The DCP-WG has identified that the work mandated by the Board in approving the Council Report to the Board, Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries (PDP Feb 06) - 2 November 2007, Recommendation 5* has not been done. The DCP-WG recommends that this work be implemented now by staff. Continuation or Replacement of DCP-WG: DCP-WG recommends to the Board that the WG be thanked for its work and dissolved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- * Recommendation 5 states: "In order to determine whether there is a need for a new consensus policy on the collection and use of registry data, including traffic data, for purposes other than which is was collected, there is first a need for a properly targeted study by an independent third party on the data collected and the uses to which it is put."

1 0

FW: NEWLY ELECTED OFFICERS, REGISTRIES STAKEHOLDER GROUP
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

FYI Forwarded From: Registries Stakeholder Group Please be advised that the election of Officers of the Registries Stakeholder Group was held at the meeting today, Tuesday, 7 December, in Cartagena. I am pleased to share the outcome of the vote as follows: Chair: David Maher Alternate Chair: Keith Drazek Treasurer: Ken Stubbs Their term is for two years, and commences with the close of the 2010 ICANN meeting in Cartagena. Best regards, Cherie Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: DRAFT/Berard SOI
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

Forwarded From: John Berard John Berard/Statement of Interest/December 2010 I am the founder of a communications consultancy called Credible Context and based in San Francisco, CA, USA. The firm is the culmination of a 35-year career in public relations at agencies large and small in New York, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. My clients are not defined by industry but by market need. I specialize in marketing communications that helps companies renew, reshape and re-emerge in existing and adjacent markets. My practice is rooted in the notion that in a media environment that is immediate, ubiquitous and unforgiving, effective communications must be linked to who you are. That is the credible context. In the past 12 months, as part of my broader portfolio of clients, I have worked with registrars, registries and globally branded consumer and business-to-business companies for whom the web is either an essential platform or represents their only commercial presence. That is the current extent of my work, especially as it relates to ICANN, registries or registrars. I view myself, first-and-foremost, as a registrant and a business person. My small (less than 10 names) portfolio of domain names is registered through GoDaddy.com<http://GoDaddy.com>. With regard to participation in communities other than ICANN, I am a member of the board of the Market Street Railway, the support organization for the vintage streetcars in San Francisco and a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0