March 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Council Meeting - 2nd of April
by Adrian Kinderis March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

All, I will not be on the Council call on Friday. It is Good Friday - a religious and public holiday in my country. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

1 0

Public Comment: GNSO Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars
by Glen de Saint Géry March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

Public Comment: GNSO Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-29mar10-en.htm 29 March 2010 The GNSO Council is seeking comments regarding the commencement of a policy development process on the topic of vertical integration1 between registries and registrars. The public comment period ends on 18 April 2010. Background The GNSO Council has commenced a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries. The GNSO Council formed a working group to evaluate whether policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs. The working group expects to define the range of restrictions on vertical separation that are currently in effect, to serve as a baseline to evaluate future proposals. ICANN is currently in the process of finalizing the implementation details for the launch of new gTLDs. ICANN has posted three draft applicant guidebooks and a series of topic papers for public comment describing the manner in which ICANN proposes to implement this program. These documents include proposals on the topic of vertical integration- and whether cross-ownership restrictions or other rules related to vertical integration should be adopted to apply to the New gTLD Program. At Nairobi, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution recognizing the importance of establishing a baseline approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead. Within the context of the new gTLD process, the ICANN Board resolved that there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed. The ICANN Board further resolved that if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program. This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any aspect related to the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars that you think should be taken into account by the Working Group as part of its deliberations. For example, comments may be submitted on: (i) recommended models for the New gTLD Program, (ii) the economic analysis conducted by economists retained by ICANN, including the CRA Report [PDF, 512 KB] as well as the one recently submitted by Salop and Wright [PDF, 42 KB], (iii) the Board approved model proposed by the Board at the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi on 12 March 2010, or (iv) whether the restrictions currently applicable to existing gTLD registries should be changed, or (v) additional work that should be performed by the Working Group to recommend models for the New gTLD Program.. Additional Information: To review the Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars, please refer to http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf [PDF, 254 KB]. The ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5. To review the charter describing the policy work to be undertaken by the Vertical Integration Working Group, please refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-1… [PDF, 41 KB]. To participate in the GNSO working group for this policy development process, please contact Glen de Saint Gery at gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org by no later than 31 March 2010. For information on the details of the implementation planning activities for new gTLDs, please refer to the documents posted at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm For additional resources on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars, please refer to the documents posted at: https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?https_st_icann_org_vert… Staff responsible: Margie Milam Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to pdp-vertical-integ(a)icann.org until 18 April 2010. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#vi An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-vertical-integration/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 From the VI PDP WG Charter: ' "Vertical Integration" (VI) is defined as a business structure in which there is no separation between the Registry Operator and the registrar in relation to a particular gTLD. They are either owned or controlled by the same company or have another contractual affiliation that controls the specific gTLD, and the Registry Operator is not required to provide equivalent access and non-discriminatory access to non-affiliated registrars to sell names under its gTLD.' Please note that this is a working definition, which is subject to further development and refinement. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

URGENT Feedback on Framework for FY11 Ops Plan and Budget
by Glen de Saint Géry March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

Forwarded from Kevin Wilson: Dear SO/AC Chairs and other leaders of iCANN community groups: This is to remind you that April 1st is the deadline for the Open Forum for Community Feedback on the Framework for ICANN's FY11 Operating Plan and Budget. We have heard many oral quesitons and comments this year, but as of today we only have one posted comment. http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2011. Any comments received will be synthesized and a response posted. The feedback, if applicable, will be factored into the draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget which will be posted by the 17th of May. At that time another open forum will be established to encourage public feedback with enough time to synthesize comments before final submital to the Board at the Brussels meeting in June. We encourage your feedback. Best regards Kevin Wilson CFO ICANN

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Alan Greenberg March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

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 > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

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 > > >

1 0

MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Rafik Dammak March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

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

5 7

RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO 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
by Terry L Davis March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

Debbie I would hope that we can separate "non-profit service orgs" from "dis-advantaged". I believe they represent two entirely different needs and thus unfortunately probably two different application processes. That said, this was my first concern! How do we catagorize "dis-advantaged" orgs. If we can figure this out such that the "non-profit purely international service orgs" are not lumped into "dis-advantaged" I think that is the correct way forward. Take care Terry On Tue Mar 23 12:53 , sent: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Tim, > >Â > >I am sorry to hear that you think discussion >of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not âurgent.â Â I >certainly understand the concern shared by many related to ICANN staff and Councilors >limited Â resources and timing; however, I think we do ICANN a disservice by >discrediting the importance non-commercial use new gTLDs and minimizing the >voice of certain stakeholders based on the lack of commercialization of new >gTLDs. Â I would hope many may come to understand that there are âurgentâ >and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, >educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities >worldwide. > >Â > >I hope there is a way to get this process right >without delay. Â Delay helps no one.Â However, dismissing groups as suggested below >for the sake of speed is very disconcerting. > >Â > >Debbie > >Â > > > >Debra Y. Hughes l Senior >Counsel > >American Red Cross > >Office of the General CounselÂ > >2025 E Street, NW > >Washington, D.C. 20006 > >Phone: (202) 303-5356 > >Fax: (202) 303-0143 > >HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: >owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com > >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 >10:57 AM > >To: Gomes, Chuck; >owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Rafik Dammak > >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; StÃ©phane >Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council; Margie Milam > >Subject: Re: [council] FW: >Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO 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 > > > >Â > >Does this need to be in place for the first round? I would find it hard >to support assistance for any applicant wanting to apply for a commercially >viable gTLD for profit. So if this would apply mainly to non-profit community >types it seems it isn't urgent. > > > >I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have time to >really work out the best solution. > > > >Tim > > > > > > > > > >From: "Gomes, >Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > > > > >Date: Tue, 23 Mar >2010 10:41:55 -0400 > > > > > >To: Rafik >Dammak<rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > > > > > >Cc: Terry L Davis, >P.E.<tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; >StÃÂ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; Bruce >Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO >Council<council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> > > > > > >Subject: RE: [council] >FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO 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 > > > > > >Â > > > >A motion is being prepared for GNSO >Council action on 1 April.Â The ALAC also has this on their agenda >today.Â The motion will likely task the WG with first developing a charter >that would need to be approved by the participating SO's and AC's. > >Â > >Rafik - would you like to make the >motion?Â Margie is preparing a draft motion; once I have it, I would be >happy to send it to you so you can make it.Â The deadline for motions is >tomorrow, 24 March. > >Â > >Chuck > > > >Â > > > > > > > >From: Rafik >Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] > >Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 >PM > >To: Gomes, Chuck > >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; >owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; StÃ©phane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council > >Subject: Re: [council] FW: >Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO 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 > > > >yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg? > > > >Â > > > > > >Rafik > > > >2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > > >Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up >with some good ideas. > >Â > >Chuck > > > >Â > > > > > > > >From: Rafik Dammak >[mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] > > >Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 >PM > >To: Gomes, Chuck > >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; >StÃ©phane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: [council] FW: >Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO 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 > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > >Hi Chuck, > > > > > >I am concerned that the only explanation that we can hear is "staff >said" or "staff stated" or "staff explained" or >"staff decided". I understand for the need for support form the staff >but for GNSO council, there are still rooms to have its own vision and making >decision independently from staff reports?Â > > > > > >Â > > > > > >@Alan yes the feeling is that ICANN is not listening to people from >developing countries and get more worse when ICANN "would like" ccTLD >from African region to participate with 3% (Idea suggested by Rod) or also to >hear the "technical support" which will be provided by the proposed >DNS-CERT (it is really offending and just overlapping with tasks done by >regionalÂ organizations) > > > > > >Â > > > > > >Regards > > > > > >Â > > > > > >Rafik > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > >2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is >the same. Â Some have higher security needs than others. Â Some need a >more global infrastructure than others. Â Some have lower costs in their >region and in other places in the world. Â All have different business >plans. > > > >But the basic cost of evaluating an application, excluding any dispute >processes that may ensue, are essentially the same for all applicants except in >cases where the same applicant applies for multiple TLDs. Â The way Staff >has decided to impose application fees as of now, they have already built in >subsidization of fees for single TLD applicants by those applying for multiple >TLDs. > > > >Chuck > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On Behalf Of > > > > > > > >> rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com > >> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM > >> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > >> 'StÃ©phane Van Gelder'; 'Bruce Tonkin' > >> Cc: 'GNSO Council ' > >> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > >> GNSO 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 Meeti > >> > >> > >> Hello All, > >> > >> In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using the > >> principle of equality in this case which looks more like > >> discrimination against applicants for developing regions. Why > >> you want a registry from developing regions to have the same > >> budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of > >> way to cut costs. > >> > >> Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with respect > >> to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed country. > >> That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to > >> documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of > >> such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN > >> perspective?but also for the application fees as the > >> explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Rafik > >> BlackBerry from DOCOMO > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net> > >> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 > >> To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; > >> 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > >> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > >> GNSO 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 Meeti > >> > >> > >> Stephane > >> > >> My feelings also. > >> > >> To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged enties" > >> alike regardless > >> of their nationality as there will be many entities in every > >> country for > >> which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of > >> them though > >> would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you > >> actually have the > >> resources then to run a TLD? > >> > >> Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms. > >> > >> Take care > >> Terry > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On > >> Behalf Of St phane Van Gelder > >> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM > >> To: Bruce Tonkin > >> Cc: GNSO Council > >> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO 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 Meeti > >> > >> > >> I had understood the motion to be referencing financial support. > >> > >> But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution. If > >> the aim is to > >> help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so > >> vague as to be > >> totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore the > >> possibility of > >> catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I > >> think we then > >> spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the > >> GAC has been > >> pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms > >> that can only lead > >> to more delays. > >> > >> Just my personal five cents. > >> > >> St phane > >> > >> Le 20 mars 2010 Â 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a Â crit : > >> > >> > > >> > Hello Chuck, > >> > > >> >> > >> >> This is interesting Bruce. Â I had no idea that this motion > >> was talking > >> >> about financial support; > >> > > >> > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > >> the Board to > >> > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > >> > > >> > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > >> > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > >> > forward some proposals. Â It was my input (which I also > >> stated during > >> > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > >> > help, but also support in terms of resources. Â I gave the > >> example that > >> > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > >> operated by > >> > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Bruce Tonkin > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Initial WHOIS Service Requirements Report for Council review and discussion
by Liz Gasster March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

All, On 7 May, 2009, the GNSO Council requested that policy staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the WHOIS service policy tools. The GNSO Council asked that these requirements reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current WHOIS service but also should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past. Attached is staff's Initial WHOIS Service Requirements Report in response to this request. Steve Sheng is the primary author of this report. As part of the work, the GNSO Council also requested that we consult with the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and SSAC on this initial report, and an updated synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Specifically, through the staff liaisons, we will be sending this report to each of the SO and AC Chairs and we are seeking specific input as follows: 1) Have we adequately identified the origins of each requirement and provided sufficient background? 2) Did we miss any important requirements of or improvements to WHOIS that have been discussed to-date? 3) Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve the clarity of the document? 4) any other comments are welcome. We are asking for comments by close of business on Monday, May 17. Our plan is to incorporate the feedback into the draft report and publish the final report before the Brussels meeting. We consider this report to be a working document that will be updated and refined upon community review. Questions and input should be directed to Steve Sheng of the policy staff. Both Steve and I gave "preview" presentations of this report during the Nairobi meetings and we can provide a brief overview at the upcoming Council meeting. Steve will be conducting two webinars during April and May to brief the community on the report and to respond to questions. More information on those events is forthcoming. We thank you in advance for your valuable feedback. Liz Gasster and Steve Sheng

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO 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
by Terry L Davis March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

Adrian Well stated. Take care Terry On Mon Mar 22 16:54 , Adrian Kinderis sent: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Alan, fair point. > > > >You have my support on infrastructure and technology. We have >quietly technically supported a number of Pacific Islands at no cost for this >exact reason. > > > >I also appreciate the way you have phased your second paragraph. >It makes sense. IDN’s will be key. I just am not sure that one could classify “owning >and operating a gTLD” as critical infrastructure hence my notion of *need*. > > > > > >Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > >Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:46 AM > >To: Bruce Tonkin; 'GNSO Council' > >Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO 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 > > > > > > > >Adrian, > > > >NEED is a rather loaded term. WANTS, COULD BENEFIT FROM, ASPIRES TO each may >describe a particular situation better. > > > >I have spent a good part of the last decade in discussions about why developing >countries *need* state-of-the-art communications and technologies and >technologists when many within their populations also *nned* food and health >care and education. More to the point, why should other countries help pay for >these in lieu of food/medicine/schools. > > > >The answer revolves around the need to developing countries to participate in >the global economy (and yes, the Internet). If we cannot come up with examples >of TLDs that stick out as "really good things" that can attract >support, perhaps you are right and they don't "need" them. But I suspect >that there will be examples, particularly IDNs, where the case will be a lot >easier to make. > > > >Alan >

1 0

Extended deadline - Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP - 31 MARCH
by Glen de Saint Géry March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

Please note that the co-chairs have decided to extend the deadline for the call for volunteers to participate in the Vertical Integration Policy Development Process Working Group until Wednesday, 31 March at 23:00 UTC. After this date, no newcomers will be able to join the working group. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Dear All, The GNSO Council has initiated a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of Vertical Integration between Registrars and Registries. At its 10 March 2010 meeting, the GNSO Council formed a working group to perform the activities of this PDP, and is now seeking volunteers to serve on the working group. This working group will evaluate and propose policy recommendations for new gTLDs and existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars. The working group expects to define the range of restrictions on vertical separation that are currently in effect, to serve as a baseline to evaluate future proposals. The work will be done an expedited basis, with an expected completion date of 30 June 2010, and will follow the parameters of the charter approved by the GNSO Council for this PDP. If you would like to participate in this working group as a volunteer, kindly respond by email to <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> by Monday, 22 March. You will need to submit your Statement of Interest in order to serve on this working group. The template for the Statement of Interest is described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The working group plans to schedule its first meeting during the week of 22-26 March 2010. At that meeting, the first agenda item will be to select the Chair of the working group. The chair is expected to serve his/her duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with the GNSO Working Group guidelines. Please be prepared to nominate and vote an individual to serve as chair for this working group. For more information on this policy development process, please refer to: Issues Report on Vertical Integration: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf Charter: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… Working Group Guidelines: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… Best 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