March 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter of the proposed new City Top-Level Domain Constituency submitted by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG. This significant step represents the fourth formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the new GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition which will extend into July. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the Board's review. I have shared a copy of the attached documents with the Board and will be sending copies to the GNSO Constituencies leaders list as well. The document is now also posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.@icann.org Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 1

FW: Public Meet Up with ICANN¹s CEO in Washington, DC on 27th January
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Apr '10

25 Apr '10

Forwarded From: Donna Austin on behalf of Rod Beckstrom _______ Dear Chuck and GNSO members As you know, I believe that ICANN's CEO should be accessible to the community, but also to those who may not regularly participate in ICANN's processes but are interested in the important work we do. As a part of this effort, I've started holding what I call "Meet Ups" where I make myself available in an informal setting when I travel and my schedule allows. To help ensure as many of people as possible are able to attend if they want, we announce these as far in advance as we can. All you need to bring are your thoughts, ideas, or questions and enough coin to buy your favourite form of refreshment. Here are all the details. If you have any questions, please send an email to my Chief of Staff, Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org>. Date: 27th January 2010 17:00 to 19:00 local time Place: Buffalo Billiards, Victorian Room, 1330 19th Street, Washington DC 20036 Map: http://tinyurl.com/yakmr9t I hope to see you there! Warmly Rod Rod Beckstrom President & CEO ICANN

3 3

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Thank you Rafik. That is acceptable to me and I will clear that with our Councilors and the RrSG. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 31, 2010 10:12 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello, After discussion with NCSG, we decided to accept the amendment and would like to reword it:"keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs" Regards Rafik 2010/3/31 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Rafik, Olga, I think it would clearly be useful for you to provide some explanation as to why you don't consider Tim's amendment as friendly. There may be very good reasons for that, but by not explaining them, it simply raises suspicions around this motion. Thanks, Stéphane Le 31 mars 2010 à 15:47, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > That's just all the more reason to accept my amendment as friendly. If > it is not considered friendly then it's clear to me that Rafik and Olga > have something different in mind. Regardless of the Board motion > mentioning it, this motion needs to be clear that it has picked up on > that fact and that the WG will proceed accordingly. If that is not > clear, it is unlikely the RrSG will support it. > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON > NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm > To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the proposed > motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the > costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs". > Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again? > > Alan > > At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >> Rafik, >> >> Then I'm confused because you said: >> >> "I think that there are misunderstandings about the working group and >> its relation with the new gTLD process too. >> - the working group should work on finding approaches for applicants >> requiring assistance. it means that those applicants have anyway to >> follow the same requirements like any other applicants. the assistance >> may be technical (as suggested by Andrei) or/and financial (to find >> structure/organizations to fund those projects, it is not ICANN which >> will fund!)." >> >> All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make your point - "it >> is not ICANN which will fund!" Would you please propose such an >> amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to support >> the motion. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON >> NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT >> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am >> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> Hello, >> >> unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> Rafik >> >> 2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> >> Rafik/Olga, >> >> Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? >> >> Chuck >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >> >> >>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz >>> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM >>> To: GNSO Council >>> Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING >>> GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT >>> >>> >>> Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look >>> for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to >>> possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that >>> evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment: >>> >>> Add the following to the first Resolve: >>> >>> keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of >>> new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs >>> >>> So the first Resolve would read: >>> >>> Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a >>> joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request >>> by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to >>> new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and >>> operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to >>> recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going >>> services to new gTLDs; >>> >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP >>> ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT >>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >>> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am >>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO >>> <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council >>> working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion >>> document is attached. >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> > >

2 1

GNSO Council Agenda 1 April 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Dear All, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 2000 UTC Please find the agenda at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-01apr10-en.htm and on the Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_1_april_2010 and in plain text for your convenience with the motion at the bottom of the agenda. Please note the addition to the agenda in Item 2: 2.1.5 Objective # 5 Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-1… Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 1 April 2010. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 20:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 13:00 PDT; 15:00 CDT; 16:00 EST; 17:00 Buenos Aires; 17:00 Brazil; 22:00 CET; 00:00 Moscow; 01:00 Pakistan; 04:00 Hong Kong; 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Melbourne - next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ Please enter as a 'guest'. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the following Council meetings per the new Council Operating Procedures: * 10 March meeting - Pending approval on 3 April 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08658.html * 15 March Special meeting - approved on 26 March 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15mar10-en.htm Item 2: Vertical Integration PDP Update (10 minutes) 2.1 Status Report (Stephane van Gelder) 2.1.1 Formation of Working Group 2.1.2 Election of chair/vice chair 2.1.3 Brief progress report 2.1.4 Draft Work Schedule 2.1.5 Objective # 5 Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-1… 2.2 Invitation of participants from the AC's and other SO's (Chuck Gomes/Glen) Item 3: Whois Studies (40 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: * Whois Studies Report: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion# http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… * Public comment site for the Framework for ICANN's FY11 Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#op-budg… (Note that the comment period ends today.) * Public comment: Draft NORC Report on Whois Accuracy, (comment period ends 15 April 2010) Presentation Slides: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/whois-studies-presentation-01apr10-en.… 3.2 Overview of the Report (Liz Gasster) 3.3 Discussion 3.4 Action items 3.4.1 Review and assess cost and feasibility estimates for the studies 3.4.2 Decide whether to pursue any of the studies and, if so, which ones 3.4.3 Provide input into the FY11 budget process 3.5 How should we accomplish the above? * Should we form a drafting team to develop recommendations for consideration in our next meeting? * Other ideas? * Note that a final budget has to be finished by 17 May and there are currently no funds budgeted for Whois Studies. Item 4: Prioritization of GNSO work (15 minutes) 4.1 Status Report (Olga Cavalli) 4.2 Next steps? Item 5: Status updates (10 minutes) 5.1 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.? Status updates: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-01april10-en.htm Item 6: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 6.1 GNSO action items from 12 March Board Resolutions 6.1.1 Joint SO/AC WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeting 6.1.2 Motion: See: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?1_april_motions 6.1.3 Discussion 6.1.4 Vote (Note: Absentee voting does not apply.) 6.2 Other? Item 7: The updated GNSO Project Status List (10 minutes) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 7.1 Questions/comments? Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ________________________________________ Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 20:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 07:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ________________________________________ For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/ MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT: Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Olga Cavalli amended by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Tim Ruiz (Amendments are in bold text) Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying and about the material requirements for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs and material conditions might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing regions, from cultural/linguistic groups and from non-profit groups such as philanthropies, Whereas, on 13 March 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 20 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20) requesting that stakeholders work with their respective ACs and SOs to form a working group to provide a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to fulfill this Board request, and to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to such new GTLD applicants; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs" Resolved further, that Rafik Dammak shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint SO/AC working group; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Chair shall within 48 hours of this motion inform the Chairs of other SO's and the AC's of this action and encourage their participation; Resolved further, that ICANN Staff shall within seven calendar days of this motion identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed; Resolved further, that the staff support assigned to this working group shall within 48 hours after the support tools are arranged distribute an invitation for working group participants as widely as possible within the SO/AC community; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall initiate its activities within 28 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the participating SO's and AC's, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim co-chair with the liaison(s) from other SO's and AC's; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall as its first action items: i) elect a chair or co-chairs; ii) establish meeting times as needed; and iii) develop and propose a charter describing its tasks and schedule of deliverables for approval by the participating SO's and AC's. Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall deliver its initial recommendation for community comment in time for discussion at the Brussels ICANN meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS documents posted
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Dear All, Please note on the 'Issues page' http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ that the following documents relating to WHOIS have been recently posted: # WHOIS Current Activity (updated April 2010) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-update-01apr10-en.htm # Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements - Initial Report (26 March 2010) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-initial-repor… # Whois Studies Report for GNSO 23 March 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion
by Caroline Greer 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Liz, Thank you very much for that clarification. That's what I hoped it meant to say. Kind regards ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> To: Caroline Greer; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Mar 31 17:52:55 2010 Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion Hi Caroline, Thanks so much for your interest in the studies! I think I understand your question, and I think the problem or concern is related to my use of the term “desire”. What I mean to say is that the researchers all conveyed that they thought it was important in order to prove or disprove the hypothesis to try to find (or determine the absence of) a specific link between publicly-displayed information related to a specific domain name and subsequent misuse of the registration data for that domain name. I think that goes to the crux of the question raised in the hypothesis and was not intend to convey that they were partial to any particular outcome. In retrospect I think I could have used a better word, but the important point I was trying to make with that “lead-in” is while the researchers demonstrated that they grasped the optimal goal of the study (to examine the queries that lead to harmful acts), the methodologies they proposed might not yield an unequivocal result and at best might yield only a “loose correlation” regarding the extent to which various anti-harvesting measures result in reductions of harmful acts. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you would like further clarification. Best, Liz From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:33 AM To: Liz Gasster; GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Sheng Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion Liz, Many thanks for sending through the initial staff report. I noticed one particular line in the report that I wanted to clarify. Under the Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies section [Staff recommendations about Misuse Studies, based on RFP responses], the following is stated: “Every bidder expressed a strong desire to tie WHOIS queries directly to harmful acts.” I checked back on the ToR and it appears (please correct me if I am wrong) that the intent was to prove or disprove the following hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse – that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose. Perhaps it is just the way that the report is worded but do you think that the bidders are open from the outset to either proving or disproving the hypothesis? It did not read that way and seems as if assumptions are already being made (which may of course be correct, but study and analysis should bring about that result). Kind regards, Caroline. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: 23 March 2010 23:47 To: GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Sheng Subject: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion All, Attached please find staff’s initial report on WHOIS studies as requested by the Council on 4 March 2009. I will provide an overview of this report at the Council’s upcoming 1 April meeting, and I look forward to your comments and input. My report will also be posted here shortly. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion# <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion> I will also be posting my presentation slides by the end of this week. I’d also like to make the following points: 1. I want to recognize that this effort has been underway for quite some time, and while I have provided many updates along the way, I understand that the background and context may be new to Council members who joined the GNSO following the discussions that led to initiation of this work. I would be glad to add additional background or detail as requested. There was a significant body of work that the Council and community engaged in that led up to the decision in March 2009 to pursue costs and feasibility for the specific study areas selected. There were also other studies initially proposed by members of the community and by the GAC. Those described in my report were selected by the Council for staff to pursue. 2. The Policy staff is also releasing a first draft later this month of an additional “study” that was requested by the GNSO Council in May 2009. This “study” is more accurately described as a compilation or synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements, that includes known deficiencies in the current service and “any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past”. As requested in the resolution initiating this work, when Staff releases the report, we will be consulting with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO on this draft, and an updated synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Steve Sheng is the primary author of this upcoming report. 3. Regarding both reports, staff has tried to be responsive to the expectations of the GNSO in initiating the requests. If more work is needed or you have something further in mind, please let us know. We consider both to be working documents that can be updated or refined upon community review. 4. There are many important details to consider, but ultimately the Council will want to consider whether to recommend funding for WHOIS studies in the FY 2011 budget. WHOIS studies have been noted as a potential future expense for some time, but the analysis I’ve just completed provides much-needed detail on specific costs to anticipate for the WHOIS Misuse and WHOIS Registrant Identification studies. At the time this work was initiated, there were differing views about whether / which studies should be undertaken. Hopefully the information provided will be useful to the Council in considering next steps. I might also suggest that this information be provided to the GAC given its extensive previous recommendations for further study of WHOIS. Staff can forward the report or the Council may certainly do so. Again, we look forward to your comments and input! Thanks, Liz

1 0

Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion
by Liz Gasster 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

All, Attached please find staff's initial report on WHOIS studies as requested by the Council on 4 March 2009. I will provide an overview of this report at the Council's upcoming 1 April meeting, and I look forward to your comments and input. My report will also be posted here shortly. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion# I will also be posting my presentation slides by the end of this week. I'd also like to make the following points: 1. I want to recognize that this effort has been underway for quite some time, and while I have provided many updates along the way, I understand that the background and context may be new to Council members who joined the GNSO following the discussions that led to initiation of this work. I would be glad to add additional background or detail as requested. There was a significant body of work that the Council and community engaged in that led up to the decision in March 2009 to pursue costs and feasibility for the specific study areas selected. There were also other studies initially proposed by members of the community and by the GAC. Those described in my report were selected by the Council for staff to pursue. 2. The Policy staff is also releasing a first draft later this month of an additional "study" that was requested by the GNSO Council in May 2009. This "study" is more accurately described as a compilation or synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements, that includes known deficiencies in the current service and "any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past". As requested in the resolution initiating this work, when Staff releases the report, we will be consulting with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO on this draft, and an updated synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Steve Sheng is the primary author of this upcoming report. 3. Regarding both reports, staff has tried to be responsive to the expectations of the GNSO in initiating the requests. If more work is needed or you have something further in mind, please let us know. We consider both to be working documents that can be updated or refined upon community review. 4. There are many important details to consider, but ultimately the Council will want to consider whether to recommend funding for WHOIS studies in the FY 2011 budget. WHOIS studies have been noted as a potential future expense for some time, but the analysis I've just completed provides much-needed detail on specific costs to anticipate for the WHOIS Misuse and WHOIS Registrant Identification studies. At the time this work was initiated, there were differing views about whether / which studies should be undertaken. Hopefully the information provided will be useful to the Council in considering next steps. I might also suggest that this information be provided to the GAC given its extensive previous recommendations for further study of WHOIS. Staff can forward the report or the Council may certainly do so. Again, we look forward to your comments and input! Thanks, Liz

3 6

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

That's just all the more reason to accept my amendment as friendly. If it is not considered friendly then it's clear to me that Rafik and Olga have something different in mind. Regardless of the Board motion mentioning it, this motion needs to be clear that it has picked up on that fact and that the WG will proceed accordingly. If that is not clear, it is unlikely the RrSG will support it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the proposed motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs". Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again? Alan At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Rafik, > >Then I'm confused because you said: > >"I think that there are misunderstandings about the working group and >its relation with the new gTLD process too. >- the working group should work on finding approaches for applicants >requiring assistance. it means that those applicants have anyway to >follow the same requirements like any other applicants. the assistance >may be technical (as suggested by Andrei) or/and financial (to find >structure/organizations to fund those projects, it is not ICANN which >will fund!)." > >All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make your point - "it >is not ICANN which will fund!" Would you please propose such an >amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to support >the motion. > > >Thanks, >Tim > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON >NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT >From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am >To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Hello, > >unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. > > >Regards > > >Rafik > >2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >Rafik/Olga, > >Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? > >Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM > > To: GNSO Council > > Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING > > GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > > > > > > Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look > > for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to > > possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that > > evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment: > > > > Add the following to the first Resolve: > > > > keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of > > new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs > > > > So the first Resolve would read: > > > > Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a > > joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request > > by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to > > new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and > > operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to > > recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going > > services to new gTLDs; > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP > > ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > > From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am > > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO > > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > Hello, > > > > I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council > > working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion > > document is attached. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Rafik > > > > > >

4 3

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Chuck, So I assume then that my "unfriendly" amendment will be voted on prior to the motion, correct? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 8:20 pm To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Cc: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, I do not see it as a friendly amendment. Regards Olga 2010/3/30 Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Olga? Do you see this as a friendly amendment? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 3:33 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT Hello, unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. Regards Rafik 2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Rafik/Olga, Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING > GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > > > Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look > for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to > possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that > evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment: > > Add the following to the first Resolve: > > keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of > new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs > > So the first Resolve would read: > > Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a > joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request > by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to > new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and > operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to > recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going > services to new gTLDs; > > > Tim > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP > ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hello, > > I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council > working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion > document is attached. > > > Regards > > > Rafik > > >

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment: Add the following to the first Resolve: keeping in mind ICANN’s requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs So the first Resolve would read: Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board’s request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN’s requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello, I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion document is attached. Regards Rafik

7 11