February 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Letter from Chairs of ccNSO, gNSO and ALAC re AoC Reviews
by Gomes, Chuck 17 Feb '10

17 Feb '10

Attached is a letter that Chris Disspain, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and I sent to the AoC RT Selectors today. Chuck ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:44 AM To: Dengate Thrush Peter; Jānis Kārkliņš; Rod Beckstrom Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: Letter from Chairs of ccNSO, gNSO and ALAC re AoC Reviews Gentlemen, Please find attached a letter from ccNSO, gNSO and ALAC Chairs. Regards, 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. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4873 (20100217) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

1 0

Summary of public comments on EOI
by Bruce Tonkin 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

Hello All, The staff have just published a bunch of new material on new gTLDs. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-15feb10-en.htm There is a paper that summarizes the public input on EOI available at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-15feb10-en .pdf Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Policy Update Webinar Meeting Details
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

PRE-NAIROBI ICANN POLICY UPDATE BRIEFING MEETING DETAILS AND HOW TO PARTICIPATE In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming Nairobi meeting remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday, 25 February at 13.00 and 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: - GNSO Improvements - GNSO Registration Abuse Policies Working Group - GNSO Whois Studies - GNSO Vertical Integration Policy Development Process - ccNSO IDN PDP - ccNSO Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group - ccNSO Strategic and Operational Plan Working Group - ASO Global policy for handling IPv4 address space The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the slides and MP3 will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, 13.00 UTC or 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address.

1 0

New gTLD Program Makes Available New Documents for Community Discussion
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-15feb10-en.htm New gTLD Program Makes Available New Documents for Community Discussion 15 February 2010 ICANN is publishing today several materials related to the New gTLD Program. These materials have been grouped below in categories to facilitate understanding. Highlight: The Board plans to decide whether to conduct an Expressions of Interest (EOI) exercise for new gTLDs at the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi<http://nbo.icann.org/>. The Board and the community will have the opportunity to discuss the Expressions of Interest and Pre-Registrations model, which takes into account the community feedback during the two recent public comment periods. Besides the background information and description of the current proposed model, the Explanatory Memo also presents some discussion points about costs and other implementation aspects. You can download here<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/discussion-eoi-pre-registration-pr…> [PDF, 1.26 MB] the current Explanatory Memo - Discussion of the Expressions of Interest (EOI)/Pre-Registration Process Model. Below is a list and direct link to the new Public Forum. All open 15 February 2010 and close on 1 April 2010. Document Redline Topic Direct link to Public Forum TRADEMARK & COMMUNITY PROTECTIONS Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-urs-clean-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 128 KB] redline<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-urs-redline-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 181 KB] The URS is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns - one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. The Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Procedure describes an expedited process to provide trademark holders with a rapid take-down in clear cut instances of trademark abuse. The URS procedure is expected to provide trademark holders with a new, cost effective remedy in addition to those available under the UDRP and applicable law. View<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#urs> TM Clearinghouse <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-proposal-c…> [PDF, 153 KB] redline<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-proposal-r…> [PDF, 124 KB] The trademark clearinghouse is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns - one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. The Trademark Clearinghouse Model describes a proposal for a central repository of authenticated trademark information for use by registries to support their sunrise or trademark claims processes. This Model is designed to introduce efficiencies into the pre-launch processes for trademark holders and new gTLD registries. View<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#tmc> Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PPDRP)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-trademark-pddrp-clean-15feb1…> [PDF, 65 KB] redline<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-trademark-pddrp-redline-15fe…> [PDF, 105 KB] The Trademark PPDRP is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns - one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. This post delegation procedure should only afford trademark holders the right to proceed against registry operators who have acted in bad faith, with the intent to profit from the systemic registration of infringing domain names (or systemic cybersquatting) or who have otherwise set out to use the gTLD for an improper purpose. View<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#ppdrp> Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rrdrp-clean-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 61 KB] redline<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rrdrp-redline-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 69 KB] The RRDRP is one of the proposed mechanisms to address post delegation concerns. The purpose of the RRDRP is to handle complaints from a harmed organization or individual alleging that a community-based restricted gTLD registry operator was not meeting its obligations to police the registration and use of domains within the restrictions stated in the terms of the gTLD registry agreement. View<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#rrdrp> IDN ISSUES IDN 3 Character<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-3-char-requirement-15feb10-en.…> [PDF, 148 KB] This document is a follow-up to the independent Implementation Working team's recommendation on IDN string requirements. The previous requirement for at least three characters in all gTLD strings was considered problematic for some languages, and the team released a recommendation to relax the requirement in some cases. An excerpt of guidebook text is included to help inform the discussion. View<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#3-char> IDN Variants<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-variants-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 160 KB] An independent Implementation Working team has proposed an approach to IDN variant management at the top level. Language communities that use variant characters are affected by the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs . An excerpt of guidebook text is included to help inform the discussion. View<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#variants> REGISTRY OPERATIONS & AGREEMENT Bench Marking of Registry Operations <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/benchmarking-report-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 648 KB] An exercise to gather industry data on registry operations was undertaken as part of the ongoing implementation of the evaluation criteria and procedures for the New gTLD Program. This took the form of a study including analysis of public industry information and data collected through a survey of existing registry operators. View<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#benchma…> Process for gTLD Registry Agreement Amendment<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-agreement-amendment-proce…> [PDF, 129 KB] An update on discussions concerning the process for future amendments to the registry agreements for new gTLDs. The paper outlines and seeks comment on several possible amendment process models, including a model recently proposed by the GNSO's Registry Stakeholder Group. View<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#agreeme…> Public Comment Summaries and Analyses After each public comment forum closes, a summary and analysis in response to the general public is usually published. Below is a list of summary analysis regarding New gTLD Program related public forums recently closed. Document Related Public Forum Summary & Analysis of Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv3-15feb10-en.p…> [PDF, 1.13 MB] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#agbv3 Summary & Analysis of GNSO Public Comments on Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Clearinghouse<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-special-trademark…> [PDF, 332 KB] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti Summary of Proposed Rights Protection Mechanims <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-clearinghouse-urs…> [PDF, 204K] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#prpm-new-… Summary & Analysis of Expressions of Interest and Pre-Registrations<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-15feb10-en.pdf> [PDF, 844 KB] This summary combines the two Public Fora: 11 Dec 2009 to Jan 11 2009<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200912.htm#eoi-new-gt…> and 17 of Dec 2009 to 26 January 2010<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#draft-eoi>. It is important to note that there were comments received past the deadline might not be part of the summary analysis, even if they were posted on the Forum. Summary & Analysis of Final Report on Three-Character Requirement and Variant Management<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-3-character-and-v…> [PDF, 116 KB] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#3cv-final-… Other Open Issues Malicious Conduct As a component of activities that ICANN has initiated to reduce malicious conduct activities in new gTLDs, ICANN has created an initiative called the High Security Zone Top Level Domain ("HSTLD") Advisory Group. This group brings together community representatives to evaluate the viability of a voluntary program, supporting control standards and incentives that could potentially be adopted to provide an enhanced level of trust and security over the baseline registration-authority controls. A concept paper was published as a component of the new gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3 and can be referenced on the following link: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/high-security-zone-verification-04… [PDF, 214 KB] The HSLTD Advisory Group continues to work on the concept of a voluntary HSTLD program. Relevant next steps include a review and approval working draft material and work on controls necessary to support the HSTLD purpose, goals and principles. Also part of addressing malicious conduct concerns is the creation of another advisory group addressing Zone File Access. The group was formed to study and discuss (benefits and methods) to effectively and efficiently enhance access to zone file information (anticipating an environment with many gTLDs). Details of this groups work can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zone-file-access-en.htm. Updated documentation on the malicious conduct work will be available prior to the Nairobi Meeting. Market/Economic Analysis Additional economic analysis is being undertaken. ICANN has contracted to retain the services with Greg Rosston of Stanford University and Michael Katz of University of California Berkeley, both in the United States. The work will be done in a three-phase project plan with the initial reports expected to be released in mid March and the second early June. During the first phase, the economists will survey published studies and resources that describe the potential impacts of new gTLD introduction; examine theoretical arguments about benefits and costs of increased gTLDs; consider and propose empirical studies to identify areas where additional work can serve to assess costs and benefits. A verbal report on results will be presented during the ICANN Nairobi Meeting<http://nbo.icann.org/>. Vertical Integration (aka Registry/Registrar Separation) Based on debates on the subject held at the ICANN meetings in Seoul, discussion during the consultation with certain community representatives held on 7 January 2010 in Washington D.C., and ongoing study, ICANN will propose for community comment a new registry-registrar separation model for inclusion in the next draft of the gTLD agreement. Additionally, theBoard and community members will be discussing the issue in Nairobi. Root Scaling Staff anticipates a report from SSAC and RSSAC soon. Also, four demand scenarios for application volumes have been modeled: below expected, expected, above expected and significantly above expected. For each demand scenario, there's an assumption that only a fraction of the applications will lead to delegations, and that the processing time for the successful applications will be spread out. If there are more than, say, 500 applications, the processing will be batched further spreading out the delegation rates. These models will be published before the Nairobi meeting. Upcoming Critical Program Meetings During the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi<http://nbo.icann.org/>, staff will hold several New gTLD sessions, including: * Program update and a panel discussion regarding the Expressions of Interest and Pre-Registrations proposed process; * Trademark Protection; * High Security Top-Level Domains (HSTLD) & Zone File Access Advisory Group Meetings; * New gTLD introduction session for new comers. The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 is expected to be published prior to the ICANN Brussels Meeting (20-25 June 2010). Related Resources: * New gTLD Program: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm * Additional information about the HSTLD program, the HSTLD AG and recordings of the HSTLD AG meetings can be accessed at the following link: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-program-en.htm * Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.5 MB] 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 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-15feb10-en.htm 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

Public Comment: Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-15feb10-en.htm Public Comment: Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy 15 February 2010 The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) recently completed a study commissioned by ICANN to determine the percentage of domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs (i.e., .com, .net, .org, .biz, and .info) that contain accurate WHOIS data. Today, the draft report is being posted for review and comment through 15 April 2010. Community members are invited to review the draft report and its findings and comment on all aspects of the report. The information in the report is intended to contribute to the ongoing community discussion regarding WHOIS and should be useful in any future policy development process regarding WHOIS. The draft report can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/whois-accuracy-study-17jan10-en.… [PDF, 432 KB] The Process Going Forward: At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: ICANN Staff is opening a 60-day public comment, from 15 February through 15 April 2010, and invites community comments on the draft report. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#whois-a… To Submit Comments: whois-accuracy-study(a)icann.org<mailto:whois-accuracy-study@icann.org> To View Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-accuracy-study/ Staff Responsible: David A. Giza, Senior Director, Contractual Compliance Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Non-Lawyers' Guide to the 2009 RAA
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15feb10-en.htm ________________________________ Non-Lawyers' Guide to the 2009 RAA 15 February 2010 ICANN has produced a Non-Lawyers' Guide to the May 2009 Registrar Accreditation<http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/non-lawyers-guide-to-ra-agreement-15feb1…> [PDF<http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/non-lawyers-guide-to-ra-agreement-15feb1…>, 137K] in response to the At-Large Advisory Committee's (ALAC) request for such a guide. The Guide is presented as a service to all in the ICANN Community to assist in understanding ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, entered into between ICANN and each of its accredited Registrars. The Guide does not represent a legal interpretation of the RAA, and the Guide does not alter or amend the terms of the RAA. More information on Registrar accreditation can be found at http://www.icann.org/registrars/accreditation.htm<http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation.htm>. The Guide is an evolving document, and ICANN welcomes suggestions on how it can be improved. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: ICANN Board - Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting - 4 Feb 2010
by Adrian Kinderis 13 Feb '10

13 Feb '10

I am not sure why the Board is requesting staff to take action over registry/ registrar separation (I really wish there was consistency of terminology on this by the way!) now that the Council has deemed a PDP is appropriate. I am not sure how the two processes can act in parallel with any efficiency or usable outcome. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-rc-members(a)registrars.beach.net [mailto:owner-rc-members@registrars.beach.net] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 12 February 2010 9:16 AM To: rc-members(a)icann-registrars.org Subject: [RC-Members] ICANN Board - Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting - 4 Feb 2010 Hello All, Below is the Preliminary Report of the ICANN Board Meeting - 4 Feb 2010. It was a busy meeting with some important topics. In particular see notes about the EOI and the economic model for registry/registrar separation. Key points relevant to the GNSO are: - approval for .cat to offer one and two character names - approval to release $1.5 million from the existing FY10 budget contingency line item for FY10 operating expenses - approval of the July 2010 through June 2013 Strategic Plan (operational planning for the July 2010 to June 2011 financial year is now underway) - approval of process for cancelling an ICANN meeting (A United Nations Security Plan "Phase Two" or higher designation as a possible rationale for cancelling any ICANN International Meeting.) - regarding EOI =============== -- The Board has a goal of making a decision on the Expressions of Interest at its Board meeting in Nairobi. -- the ICANN Board directs staff to produce a summary of the major issues identified in the public comment on the Expressions of Interest proposal, as well as an explanation of how those issues will be dealt with if ICANN proceeds with Expressions of Interest. -- the ICANN Board directs staff to schedule a forum at the ICANN International Meeting in Nairobi for the discussion of the Expressions of Interest proposal, including the receipt of community input. - the staff gave an update on the three character gTLD requirement as it relates to IDNs - the Board directed the General Counsel to commission additional work, research and analysis of the issue of Board Chairman remuneration - the Board directed ICANN Staff to provide at least annual reminders of the Expected Standards of Behaviour - ie ask people to be nice to one another even if they have different viewpoints - there was discussion of an economic model for registry/registrar separation (note - I did not attend this part of the meeting, nor have I seen a copy of the report - but I have requested that it be published for community feedback). This is the relevant text in the minutes: " The Board received an update from staff, including a draft of an economic model from economists contracted by ICANN relating to the on the ongoing community work, study and review of the registry/registrar separation requirement and the ongoing expert economist work on the issue. Staff presented a draft economic model to the board and recommended that it be posted for public comment. The Board discussed some of the economic theories and assumptions behind the economist's work, and there was a discussion of additional work that might need to be done on this matter, as well as a sense of the Board that the model should not be published yet, pending further review and consideration. The CEO and Chairman agreed to convene on a review of the model and what additional steps could be taken. Staff advised the Board that a delay of Board consideration of this issue might delay the timeline of the new gTLD program. Following on from various board member comments, the CEO requested that any assumptions or market theories (or comments on the assumptions and market theories), that had not been considered or were within the draft model, should be provided to the CEO and Chair to enable additional work on the model." Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-04feb10-en.htm Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting 4 February 2010 [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] Note: This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but does provide a preliminary attempt setting forth the unapproved reporting of the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Board's Minutes, when approved by the board at a future meeting. A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference 4 February 2010 @ 03.00 UTC. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush promptly called the meeting to order. In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Dennis Jennings (Vice Chairman), Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Steve Crocker, Gonzalo Navarro, Rita Rodin Johnston, Raymond A. Plzak, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, and Katim Touray. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Jonne Soininen, TLG Liaison; and Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Liaison. Raimundo Beca; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Rajasekhar Ramaraj; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison sent apologies. This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 4 January 2010. 1.Consent Agenda ================ a. Minutes of 9 December 2009 Meeting RESOLVED (2010.02.04.01) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 9 December 2009 Board Meeting. b. Minutes of 22 January 2010 Meeting RESOLVED (2010.02.04.02) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 22 January 2010 Board Meeting. c. puntCAT Contract Amendment re One and Two Character Names ------------------------------------------------------------- Whereas, Fundacio puntCAT has submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the .CAT Registry Agreements to allocate one and two-character domain names via a request for proposals process to members of the Catalan cultural and linguistic community. Whereas, the proposed release of single and two-character domain names in .CAT would be consistent with the recommendations of the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group and other approvals to permit the release of one and two-character domain names. Whereas, ICANN has evaluated the proposed amendment to the .CAT Registry Agreement as new registry services pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and has posted amendments for public comment and Board approval (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/). It is hereby RESOLVED (2010.02.04.03) that the .CAT amendment is approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendments. d. Recommendation from Finance Committee regarding FY10 Budget --------------------------------------------------------------- Whereas, in accordance with its commitments made at the time of adoption of the FY10 budget, the BFC has reviewed the results of financial operations for ICANN through December 2009, as well as the forecasts for FY10; Whereas the extra pressures on the FY10 budget are acknowledged and based upon reasonable underlying causes; Whereas the BFC directed staff to develop a plan for widespread and extra cost containment efforts, and has reviewed that plan; Whereas the BFC has indicated the cost containment efforts should not include the cutting back on essential ICANN services; Whereas the risks of FY10 budget overrun have been assessed and acknowledged; It is hereby RESOLVED (2004.02.04.04) that the Board authorizes the CEO and his designated staff to approve the release of the $1.5 million from the existing FY10 budget contingency line item for FY10 operating expenses; It is hereby RESOLVED (2004.02.04.05) that the Board requests the CEO and his designated staff to closely monitor expenditures and forecasts for FY10, ensuring that ICANN essential services are not affected, and work with the BFC on plans and alternatives as required. Resolutions 2009.02.04.01; 2009.02.04.02; 2009.02.04.03; 2009.02.04.04 and 2009.02.04.05 were approved in a single vote approving the consent agenda items. All Board Members present unanimously approved these resolutions. 2.Main Board Meeting: ===================== a. .IN Redelegation Request ---------------------------- Whereas, .IN is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for India. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .IN to the National Internet Exchange of India. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. It is hereby RESOLVED (2010.02.04.06), that the proposed redelegation of the .IN domain to the National Internet Exchange of India is approved. All Board members present unanimously approved of this resolution. b. President's Report ---------------------- The Board received a report from the President and CEO on staff activity since the Board's meeting in December, including various outreach events attended by the President and CEO. c. Approval of Strategic Plan for 2010 --------------------------------------- The Board received an update from staff on the work to date on the ICANN Strategic Plan for 2010, including the incorporation of community and Board comments on prior versions. The Board discussed potential minor revisions to be included in the final version. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, ICANN's July 2010 through June 2013 Strategic Plan seeks to provide four areas of high level strategic focus for ICANN; Whereas, ICANN's July 2010 through June 2013 Strategic Plan identifies in addition to four areas of focus, enablers across all areas to reflect ICANN's responsibilities towards a multi-stakeholder model, collaboration, and being international, transparent and accountable; Whereas, ICANN's July 2010 through June 2013 Strategic Plan captures strategic objectives and strategic projects, details of community work and staff work will be reflected in the operational plan; Whereas, ICANN's Strategic Plan is based on input from the ICANN Board of Directors, public consultations on ICANN's website, presentations at ICANN Seoul meeting, and to constituency groups, and a survey with the community; Whereas, the 2010-2013 Strategic Plan describes four strategic initiatives, and principal work areas under these initiatives; Whereas, measurements and metrics will be addressed by staff in consultation with the community, as part of the operational planning process and further integration into the next Strategic Planning cycle; Whereas, the Strategic Plan will form the framework around which the July 2010 through June 2011 Operational Plan and the associated budget are constructed. Whereas, members of the community have been very generous with their time and the Board appreciates the work that they have done. It is hereby RESOLVED (2010.02.04.07) the Board approves the July 2010-June 2013 Strategic Plan, and directs the President and staff to move forward with the community-based Operational planning process based on the strategic objectives as set forth in the plan. Minor edits will be provided to staff by the Board before close of business on Monday 8 February 2010, final changes will be subject to the Chairman's final approval. All Board members present unanimously approved of this resolution. d. Adoption of Event Security Risk, Contracts and Cancellation Management Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- The Board received an update from the President and CEO on the proposal to create a more formalized process for assessing security risks for ICANN events. The Board discussed the proposal and then took the following action: RESOLVED (2010.02.04.08), the ICANN Board directs the ICANN Staff (through the CEO) to monitor, review and regularly report to the community, where possible, the United Nations Security Plan Phase Designations, relating to all ICANN International Meetings. RESOLVED (2010.02.04.09), the ICANN Board directs ICANN Staff (through the CEO) to consider the "Phase Two" or higher designation as a possible rationale for cancelling any ICANN International Meeting. RESOLVED (2010.02.04.10), the ICANN Board directs ICANN Staff (through the CEO) to consider the United Nations Security "Phase One" designation as a triggering event for review, along with other factors, of the safety and security of holding any ICANN International Meeting. All Board members present unanimously approved of this resolution. e. New gTLDs ------------- i. Expressions of Interest in new gTLDs ........................................ The Board received an update from the staff on the work done in response to the Board's 9 December 2009 resolution on Expressions of Interest. The Board then discussed that additional community consultation may be of benefit, as noted in some of the comments received urging community dialog on the issue in Nairobi. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, deferring an ICANN Board decision on the proposed plan for obtaining Expressions of Interest in new gTLDs until the ICANN International Meeting in Nairobi, Kenya in March 2010 will only cause a three-week modification to the timeline proposed by staff. It is RESOLVED (2010.02.04.11), ICANN Board adjourns with making a motion with respect to the approval of the Expressions of Interest in new gTLDs until the Board meeting at the ICANN International Meeting in Nairobi, Kenya in March 2010. The Board has a goal of making a decision on the Expressions of Interest at its Board meeting in Nairobi. It is further RESOLVED (2010.02.04.12), the ICANN Board directs staff to produce a summary of the major issues identified in the public comment on the Expressions of Interest proposal, as well as an explanation of how those issues will be dealt with if ICANN proceeds with Expressions of Interest. It is further RESOLVED (2010.02.04.13), the ICANN Board directs staff to schedule a forum at the ICANN International Meeting in Nairobi for the discussion of the Expressions of Interest proposal, including the receipt of community input. One Board member abstained from voting on these resolutions. All other Board members in attendance approved of these resolutions. ii. Relaxing 3-Character Requirement for gTLDs ................................................ The Board received an update from staff regarding the posting of the Final Report on the three-character requirement for gTLDs. f. Update on ICANN Proposed Security Initiatives in Response to Affirmation and IANA Contract Requirements ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- The Board received an update from staff on the ongoing work within the IANA functions department on proposed security initiatives. g. Recommendation from Board Governance Committee for Consideration of Board Chairman Remuneration ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- The Chair ceded the leadership of this discussion to the Vice Chair of the Board, and removed himself from deliberation on this item. The Board discussed the need to receive more information to allow for full consideration of the remuneration matter, and addressed the feasibility of separating the discussion of remuneration of the Board Chairman from the discussion of remuneration of the Board as a whole. Whereas, significant discussion and analysis has been conducted relating to whether remuneration of the Board Chairman should be considered; Whereas, the Board has discussed the idea and has determined that it shall further consider whether Board Chairman remuneration is appropriate and later consider whether full Board remuneration is appropriate; Whereas, additional work, research and analysis should be commissioned to inform the Board's consideration of Board Chairman remuneration, including an updated discussion of the associated risks; It is hereby RESOLVED (2010.02.04.14) that remuneration of the Board Chairman is worthy of further consideration. It is hereby further RESOLVED (2010.02.04.15) that the Board Governance Committee develop a plan and request that the CEO direct the General Counsel to commission additional work, research and analysis of the issue of Board Chairman remuneration, including an updated discussion of associated risks, for consideration by the BGC and then presentation to the Board for further consideration. One Board member opposed these resolutions. Two Board members abstained from voting on these resolutions. All other members of the Board in attendance approved of these resolutions, and the resolutions were carried. h. ICANN Media Relations Report --------------------------------- The Board received a short update from the President and CEO on ICANN's media relations planning. The President and CEO noted that communications outside of the United States is an important focus of this work. i. Recommendations of Ombudsman File 09-58 ----------------------------------------- The Board discussed the Ombudsman File 09-58, the conduct of the investigation, and the focus on civility within ICANN, and the need for awareness of cultural and gender issues to provide for better opportunities for participation. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, the Board thanks the Ombudsman for his report on File 09-58 addressing civility issues within ICANN related meetings and discussions; Whereas, the Board notes that there is ongoing work within ICANN to enhance civility among ICANN participants, and that this topic is of high value to the ICANN community; Whereas, the Board responds to the Ombudsman Report as follows: It is hereby RESOLVED (2010.02.04.16) that the Board affirms that all participants in ICANN are expected to adhere to the Expected Standards of Behavior as published in the ICANN Accountability & Transparency: Frameworks and Principles, found at: http://www.icann.org/en/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-10 jan08.pdf. It is further RESOLVED (2010.02.04.17) that the Board requests that the CEO direct ICANN Staff to provide at least annual reminders of the Expected Standards of Behavior to the membership of ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory committees, and to consider the other proposals by the Ombudsman to enhance civility. One Board member abstained from voting on these resolutions. All other Board members in attendance voted in favor of these resolutions. j. Update on IDNs ------------------- The Board received an update from staff on the progress of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track requests and the recent announcement of four requestors successfully completing the string evaluation stage. k. New gTLDs: Vertical Integration ---------------------------------- Prior to any discussion on this matter, the Chair identified Board members and liaisons with conflicts of interest on this issue. The non-conflicted Board members approved a motion to request that two directors, and four liaisons withdraw from participation in the discussion due to their conflicts of interest. After confirmation of removal, the Board proceeded with discussion on the matter. The Board received an update from staff, including a draft of an economic model from economists contracted by ICANN relating to the on the ongoing community work, study and review of the registry/registrar separation requirement and the ongoing expert economist work on the issue. Staff presented a draft economic model to the board and recommended that it be posted for public comment. The Board discussed some of the economic theories and assumptions behind the economist's work, and there was a discussion of additional work that might need to be done on this matter, as well as a sense of the Board that the model should not be published yet, pending further review and consideration. The CEO and Chairman agreed to convene on a review of the model and what additional steps could be taken. Staff advised the Board that a delay of Board consideration of this issue might delay the timeline of the new gTLD program. Following on from various board member comments, the CEO requested that any assumptions or market theories (or comments on the assumptions and market theories), that had not been considered or were within the draft model, should be provided to the CEO and Chair to enable additional work on the model. After the close of discussion, all Board members and liaisons were invited back into the meeting. l. Any Other Business ---------------------- The Board requested an update from staff on the status of the reviews called for within the Affirmation of Commitments, and that public comments are still being received on the proposed methodology for the reviews. The Chair requested that all Board members and liaisons encourage applications for the volunteer review panel positions. Meeting was adjourned at 0640 UTC.

1 0

Go Daddy letter to ICANN regarding Nairobi meeting
by Tim Ruiz 12 Feb '10

12 Feb '10

FYI - Go Daddy just sent the attached letter to Peter and Rod. Tim

1 0

Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Publishes Initial Report
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Feb '10

12 Feb '10

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Please note: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12feb10-en.htm Public Comment: Registration Abuse Addressed Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Publishes Initial Report 12 February 2010 The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group has published its Initial Report today. The Report includes concrete recommendations to address domain name registration abuse in gTLDs for Community consideration and input. Included are recommendations related to: Cybersquatting: recommending the initiation of a Policy Development Process to investigate the current state of the UDRP. Whois access problems: seeking ways to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion; and requesting that the ICANN Compliance Department publish data about WHOIS accessibility. Malicious use of domain names: recommending the creation of best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. Front-running: recommending possible enforcement actions by ICANN Compliance Fake renewal notices Domain kiting Deceptive and/or offensive domain names Uniformity of contracts: recommending the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements. GNSO-wide practices for the collection and dissemination of best practices, and for uniformity of reporting. At the same time, a public comment period has been opened to allow for Community input and feedback on the report and its recommendation (to submit comments, please go to: rap-initial-report(a)icann.org). Comments can be submitted until 28 March 2010. Furthermore, the Working Group will be organizing a public information session at the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi. After reviewing and analyzing the public comments received, the Working Group will finalize the report and submit it to the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) for its consideration. Background On 25 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a motion requesting an issues report on registration abuse provisions in registry-registrar agreements. The issues report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 29 October 2008 and provides an overview of existing provisions in registry-registrar agreements relating to abuse and includes a number of recommended next steps. In December 2009, the GNSO Council agreed to charter a Working Group to investigate the open issues identified in Registration Abuse Policies report, before deciding on whether or not to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP). A Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) was chartered in February 2009. The GNSO Council committed to not making a decision on whether or not to initiate a PDP on registration abuse policies until the RAPWG has presented its findings. Further information Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Initial Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap-wg-initial-report-12feb10-en.pdf [PDF, 1.8 MB] Registration Abuse Policies Workspace - https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/ ICANN Meeting in Nairobi - http://nbo.icann.org/ Public Comment Forum - http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#rap-initial-report Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0