February 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Mitigating Malicious Conduct in New gTLD - Zone File Access
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 23, 2010

Feb. 23, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22feb10-en.htm ________________________________ Mitigating Malicious Conduct in New gTLD - Zone File Access 22 February 2010 Zone File Access Concept Paper<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zfa-concept-paper-18feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 260 KB] Cost Model Information<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zone-file-access-en.htm> In one of many efforts to mitigate the potential for malicious conduct in new gTLDs, ICANN formed the Zone File Access (ZFA) Advisory Group following an announcement on 3 December 2009 (see, http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03dec09-en.htm) ICANN sought the participation of a diverse and knowledgeable set of volunteers to discuss alternatives for Zone File Access. The group was charged with discussing benefits and exploring methods to effectively and efficiently enhance access to zone file information in an environment with many gTLDs. The Anti-Phishing Working Group and others have described access to zone data as an effective tool for combating DNS abuse. On behalf of the ZFA Advisory Group, ICANN is opening a public comment forum on the ZFA Concept Paper (the "Paper") that describes standardized forms of access to zone file information. The Paper proposes four alternative implementation models for community consideration. The Paper focuses on technical, operational, and administrative challenges for data providers and consumers in an environment with a potentially large number of gTLD registry zone files. Specifically, the work of the group targets consumer concerns relating to difficulties of accessing this important information in the new environment. For those combating DNS abuses, the goals of the program are to reduce the differences in and complexity of contractual agreements; standardize approaches; improve security and zone file access methods. Goals for gTLD registries include managing overhead related to zone file access and considering ways to improve service while maintaining administrative control over zone data. The ZFA Advisory Group plans to conduct a workshop<http://nbo.icann.org/node/8876> on its Paper and on-going activities at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 from 12:00-13:30 UTC. A copy of the Paper is available here<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zfa-concept-paper-18feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 260 KB]. The cost model referenced in the Paper is available here<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zfa-cost-model-18feb10-en.xls> [XLS, 106 KB]. Comments on the Paper submitted to zfa-concept-15feb10(a)icann.org<mailto:zfa-concept-15feb10@icann.org> will be considered until 8 April 2010 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/zfa-concept-15feb10/. All documentation related to the work of the group, including an archive of its mailing list and MP3s for its teleconferences, is available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zone-file-access-en.htm. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Plan and Budget Framework Posted for Community Review
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 22, 2010

Feb. 22, 2010

Dear All, I'm sure you have noticed that the Framework for the FY11 Operating Plan and Budget is now posted for your feedback. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2011 The community is strongly encouraged to focus feedback via the online 24/7 public forum and/or at the open forum on Wednesday 10 Mar 10 1400 – 1500 Nairobi time. In addition, if you would like ICANN’s CFO, Kevin Wilson, to present the FY11 Framework to your community group before, during or after the Nairobi meeting, please let us know. Kevin has a prepared 15 or 20 minute highlight presentation and then can open up for questions and/or feedback. Please let us know how you wish to address the FY11 Operating Plan and Budget. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Plan and Budget Framework Posted for Community Review 15 February 2010 Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) Operating Plan and Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/planning/ops-budget-framework-fy2011-en.pdf> [PDF, 767 KB] Translated versions will be available in the following languages soon: Español العربية Français Русский 中文 The release of ICANN's Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) Operating Plan and Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/planning/ops-budget-framework-fy2011-en.pdf> [PDF, 767 KB] kicks off the operational planning process for ICANN, providing the community the first look at the planned work and financial resources required for FY11. The framework will be discussed with members of the ICANN community at the Nairobi meeting in March, through online public comment areas, and through conference calls with ICANN constituencies. A more detailed draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget will be posted by 17 May 2010. After more public comment and feedback, the budget is expected to be adopted by the ICANN Board at its Brussels meeting in June 2010. As always, the community is encouraged to comment on how well this plan addresses priorities identified in the Strategic Plan. This year, specifically in light of the revised format reflecting 4 key focus areas in the adopted Strategic Plan, the community is encouraged to comment regarding the plan elements as it relates to those areas, as well as the five fundamental aspects of ICANN's activities, which cut across all focus areas: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#op-budg… Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Application
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 22, 2010

Feb. 22, 2010

Forwarded From: Alice Jansen Dear Glen, Enclosed please find an endorsement application for Affirmation of Commitments' Reviews. The applicant S.S Kshatriya wishes to represent the GNSO during the: Ø Accountability and Transparency Review (first choice); or alternatively: Ø Promoting Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (second choice) Ø Whois Policy (third choice) The compressed folder attached to this email contains his CV, motivation letter and his response to the additional information requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need my assistance. Thank you Kind regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

1 0

Independent Review Panel decision regarding .xxx
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 21, 2010

Feb. 21, 2010

Hello All, Note that the Independent Review Panel has issued its findings with respect to ICM (applicant for .xxx in the last new gTLD round) and ICANN. It will be something else for the Board to consider in Nairobi. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/irp-panel-declaration-19feb10-en .pdf 152. The Panel concludes, for the reasons stated above, that: First, the holdings of the Independent Review Panel are advisory in nature; they do not constitute a binding arbitral award. Second, the actions and decisions of the ICANN Board are not entitled to deference whether by application of the "business judgment" rule or otherwise; they are to be appraised not deferentially but objectively. Third, the provision of Article 4 of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation prescribing that ICANN "shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law," requires ICANN to operate in conformity with relevant general principles of law (such as good faith) as well as relevant principles of international law, applicable international conventions, and the law of the State of California. Fourth, the Board of ICANN in adopting its resolutions of June 1, 2005, found that the application of ICM Registry for the .XXX sTLD met the required sponsorship criteria. Fifth, the Board's reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. Sixth, in respect of the first foregoing holding, ICANN prevails; in respect of the second foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; in respect of the third foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; in respect of the fourth foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; and in respect of the fifth foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails. Accordingly, the prevailing party is ICM Registry. It follows that, in pursuance of Article IV, Section 3(12) of the Bylaws, ICANN shall be responsible for bearing all costs of the IRP Provider. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees. Therefore, the administrative fees and expenses of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, totaling $4,500.00, shall be borne entirely by ICANN, and the compensation and expenses of the Independent Review Panel, totaling $473,744.91, shall be borne entirely by ICANN. ICANN shall accordingly reimburse ICM Registry with the sum of $241,372.46, representing that portion of said fees and expenses in excess of the apportioned costs previously incurred by ICM Registry. Judge Tevrizian is in agreement with the first foregoing conclusion but not the subsequent conclusions. His opinion follows.

1 0

Re: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au Feb. 20, 2010

Feb. 20, 2010

This is a good idea - I think this is a core issue for ICANN Board over next few years as service take-up and development, pace of change and stakeholder scrutiny increase Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:31:00 To: William Drake<william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>; StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner What if we broaden the topic some by focusing on sustaining the volunteer model in the long term? Chuck ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 6:38 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Gomes, Chuck; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner I understood Stéphane's suggestion to be for a sort of meta-reflection on the whole model rather than another discussion of prioritization. Stated at this level of abstraction, one can imagine ways in which it could be a useful and illuminating dialogue but also ways in which it could be unproductive. Maybe it would help to specify the possible content a little more? I'm inclined to think it's worth doing but would like more sense of the likely direction. Thanks, Bill On Feb 19, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: I know what you mean, but I don't see this as solely a prioritization problem. Sure that will help, but even if we do prioritize, we're still all spending most of our time working for ICANN and that is looking like it will only get worse. How long can the organisation hold if that's the case? If the question is too contentious, let's leave it aside. But in that case, we still need to come up with a second topic. Stéphane Le 19 févr. 2010 à 14:49, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : If others want this topic, that is fine. But I am not sure it is one well suited for the Board because it is one that we need to work and we are. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Feb 19 07:40:13 2010 Subject: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner I would like to propose a 2nd topic for the Board dinner (I believe the custom initiated by Avri was to have 2 topics). As we saw yesterday from our discussions during the Council meeting, there is a danger of staff being overloaded by the current workload. And as I pointed out, my worry is more for us volunteers that have to balance an extremely demanding ICANN workload, for which we are neither paid nor compensated in any way, with our real lives and jobs. So I guess there comes a point where the question must be asked: is a system based on so much volunteer involvement viable in the long run, and if we want to keep the system as is (with the obvious benefits of being truly multi stakeholder), what solutions are there to make it viable (for example, more staff as Mike suggested yesterday)? Thoughts? Stéphane

1 0

Re: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 20, 2010

Feb. 20, 2010

If others want this topic, that is fine. But I am not sure it is one well suited for the Board because it is one that we need to work and we are. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Feb 19 07:40:13 2010 Subject: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner I would like to propose a 2nd topic for the Board dinner (I believe the custom initiated by Avri was to have 2 topics). As we saw yesterday from our discussions during the Council meeting, there is a danger of staff being overloaded by the current workload. And as I pointed out, my worry is more for us volunteers that have to balance an extremely demanding ICANN workload, for which we are neither paid nor compensated in any way, with our real lives and jobs. So I guess there comes a point where the question must be asked: is a system based on so much volunteer involvement viable in the long run, and if we want to keep the system as is (with the obvious benefits of being truly multi stakeholder), what solutions are there to make it viable (for example, more staff as Mike suggested yesterday)? Thoughts? Stéphane

4 4

FW: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 19, 2010

Feb. 19, 2010

Note that Janis would like to leave the GAC/GNSO joint meeting as we proposed. Glen - You may post it. Chuck ________________________________ From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:40 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi Chuck Let’s keep your questions and try to follow 20/20/20 in rule. All of them are important for current discussion. I asked Mark and Bertrand to speak on behalf of the GAC on new gTLDs and EoI. I will speak on AoC JK From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: piektdiena, 2010. gada 19. februārī 19:27 To: janis.karklins(a)icann.org Subject: Re: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi Janis, I was asking you if you wanted suggest some deletions. We knew it was too much to cover so we were kind of giving you a menu. I was hoping we could narrow the list of topics and/or questions a few days before the joint meeting so we could post a more accurate agenda. Chuck ________________________________ From: Janis Karklins <janis.karklins(a)icann.org> To: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Fri Feb 19 12:12:40 2010 Subject: RE: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi Don’t understand the meaning of the question, Chuck. Pls explain Do you want to take something off? Or you are asking me to suggest what can been taken off? JK From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: piektdiena, 2010. gada 19. februārī 17:57 To: janis.karklins(a)icann.org Cc: olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar; Glen(a)icann.org Subject: Re: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi Janis, Any chance of narrowing down the questions and/or topics several days in advance of the meeting? Chuck ________________________________ From: Janis Karklins <janis.karklins(a)icann.org> To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Cavalli, Olga' <olgac(a)fibertel.com.ar>; 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen(a)icann.org> Sent: Fri Feb 19 02:41:05 2010 Subject: RE: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi Chuck Thanks for sending questions. In my mind – there is enough material to entertain discussion at least 6 hours. Therefore, I will forward the list to my GAC colleagues and will ask them to prepare for the debate. If there will be questions from GAC side I will let you know. On the logistics – all my answers are affirmative and I will make sure that all councilors are seated at the table during the discussion. We will discuss with Olga all modalities right before the meeting. Best regards JK From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: ceturtdiena, 2010. gada 18. februārī 22:05 To: Janis Karklins Cc: Cavalli, Olga; Janis Karklins; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi Janis, To help us make the most effective use of our time in the Joint GAC/GNSO Meeting in Nairobi, the GNSO Council would like to propose the attached draft approach to the meeting. As you can see, there is undoubtedly too much to cover in one hour, especially if there is very much discussion, and I hope there will be. You may want to identify the topics and questions under each topic that you think would be most useful and accepted by GAC members. Please feel free to trip it down as you see fit. After I receive your feedback, we would like to post it on the GNSO site; if you would like it also posted on the ICANN meeting site, we can do that as well; just let me know. VeriSign is not allowing any employees to attend the Nairobi meetings in person so I will not be there, but I do plan to try to participate remotely assuming remote connectivity is provided. Is it okay with you to have remote connectivity for our joint meeting? Our vice chairs Olga Cavalli and Stephane Van Gelder plan to participate in the meeting in Nairobi and Olga will fill in for me in my absence. Regarding meeting logistics, I would like to request that as many Councilors as possible be able to sit at tables with microphones alongside GAC members. Whatever can be done to facilitate that would be appreciated, but please understand that we do not want to displace GAC members who should also be at those tables. Note that we will have fewer Councilors in attendance than normal so not as many seats will be needed. Also, I would suggest that GNSO observers seat in the perimeter area if seating is limited. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Chuck

1 0

FW: Affirmation reviews / deadline for RT applications / possible further extension
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 19, 2010

Feb. 19, 2010

________________________________ From: Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:03 AM To: Chris Disspain; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Bart Boswinkel; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: RE: Affirmation reviews / deadline for RT applications / possible further extension Thanks Chris, we'll proceed then with these dates. Best regards to all Marco Marco Lorenzoni --------------------- ICANN Director, Organizational Review marco.lorenzoni(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234 78 69 Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Skype: marco_lorenzoni --------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Thursday, 18 February, 2010 23:13 To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Marco Lorenzoni Cc: Bart Boswinkel; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: RE: Affirmation reviews / deadline for RT applications / possible further extension I'm fine with 7 to 17. Let's stick with that! Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, 19 February 2010 01:06 To: Marco Lorenzoni; Chris Disspain Cc: Bart Boswinkel; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: Affirmation reviews / deadline for RT applications / possible further extension I could live with that if that helps Chris's concern. Chuck ________________________________ From: Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:30 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Chris Disspain Cc: Bart Boswinkel; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: Affirmation reviews / deadline for RT applications / possible further extension What about 8th and 17th ? I don't see many more alternatives Best regards Marco Lorenzoni --------------------- ICANN Director, Organizational Review marco.lorenzoni(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234 78 69 Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Skype: marco_lorenzoni --------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, 18 February, 2010 14:25 To: Chris Disspain; Marco Lorenzoni Cc: Bart Boswinkel; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: Affirmation reviews / deadline for RT applications / possible further extension This might work but it leaves very little time for evaluation of applications and doesn't take advantage of Nairobi meeting time. Chuck ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:39 AM To: 'Marco Lorenzoni' Cc: 'Bart Boswinkel'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: RE: Affirmation reviews / deadline for RT applications / possible further extension Marco, I think that the opportunity to discuss in Nairobi is likely to be the best that can be done to get good people to volunteer. For that reason I'd suggest the later deadline. However to allow enough time for nominations to be endorsed straight after the ICANN meeting whilst people are still travelling, I'd recommend that the deadline for candidatures be 11th and for endorsement 17th. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Marco Lorenzoni [mailto:marco.lorenzoni@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, 17 February 2010 21:25 To: Chris Disspain Cc: Bart Boswinkel Subject: Affirmation reviews / deadline for RT applications / possible further extension Importance: High Chris, in agreement with Janis and Peter I would like to explore with you if a further and consistent extension of the applications for membership in the first Review Team could alleviate your time pressure and result in a higher number of qualified candidatures. The new deadlines can be as follows (two alternative hypothesis): * 7 March - deadline for candidatures to be sent to the general email address * 15 March - deadline for ccNSO to provide the 'endorsement' of candidatures OR * 13 March - deadline for candidatures to be sent to the general email address * 17 March - deadline for ccNSO to provide the 'endorsement' of candidatures Please let me know as soon as possible what is your preferred option, and feel free to share this email internally Best regards Marco Marco Lorenzoni --------------------- ICANN Director, Organizational Review marco.lorenzoni(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234 78 69 Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Skype: marco_lorenzoni --------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4873 (20100217) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

2 1

RE: reason for abstention
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 19, 2010

Feb. 19, 2010

Thanks Glen, copying the Council as well. I abstained from the vote on AoC RT selections due to the gender diversity provisions, which I think are unfair and unnecessary. ICANN is open to everyone and always has been open to everyone. So I see no reason why ICANN should be promoting one group of people over any other, based solely on irrelevant personal characteristics such as gender, race, religion or sexual orientation, etc. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:57 AM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: reason for abstention Hi Mike, Can you please give your reasons for abstention on Item 4 motion? Thanks so much. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
by Stéphane Van Gelder Feb. 19, 2010

Feb. 19, 2010

I would like to propose a 2nd topic for the Board dinner (I believe the custom initiated by Avri was to have 2 topics). As we saw yesterday from our discussions during the Council meeting, there is a danger of staff being overloaded by the current workload. And as I pointed out, my worry is more for us volunteers that have to balance an extremely demanding ICANN workload, for which we are neither paid nor compensated in any way, with our real lives and jobs. So I guess there comes a point where the question must be asked: is a system based on so much volunteer involvement viable in the long run, and if we want to keep the system as is (with the obvious benefits of being truly multi stakeholder), what solutions are there to make it viable (for example, more staff as Mike suggested yesterday)? Thoughts? Stéphane

1 0