March 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

New ICANN Board member - starting 30 April 2010- Mr Kuo-Wei Wu
by Bruce Tonkin March 23, 2010

March 23, 2010

Hello All, The ASO has announced that that Mr. Kuo-Wei Wu has been elected by the Address Council to fill Seat Number 10 on the ICANN Board. (see http://aso.icann.org/news/kuo-wei-wu-elected-to-seat-10-on-the-icann-boa rd/ ). I see that Mr Kuo-Wei Wu - has experience across ccTLDs (board member of .tw), gTLDs (Board member of .org), and IP addresses (member of Executive Council of APNIC). He has the full set :-) Below is a short biography. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://aso.icann.org/people/icann-board-elections/2010-election/kuo-wei- wu/ Short biography Mr. Kuo-Wei Wu has technical, management and policy experience in Internet-related industry. He is the co-founders of TWNIC (.tw operator), APTLD, CDNC (Chinese Domain Name Consortium). He is currently board member of TWNIC (2000 ~ now), APIA (Asia Pacific Internet Association, 2008~2010) and PIR (.org operator, 2009~2011), and EC of APNIC (1999~now), TWIA (Taiwan Internet Association, 2008~2010), and COSA (Chinese Open System Association, 1995~now). He has experience in supervision, financial, and governance. In regard to Internet-related management, Mr. Wu was the deputy director of NCHC (National Center for High-Performance Computing) from 1990~1998, where he was responsible for TANET (Taiwan Academic Network) backbone operation to serve all the universities, research institutions in Taiwan and a staff of over 120 people. He is the co-founder of Asia Pacific Supercomputer Center Consortium (HPC Asia) to lead the experience sharing over ten Asia Pacific Supercomputer Centers. He started Internet-related works since he worked for Cray Research, Inc. (1984~1990), and a vice-president of Yam Digital, Inc. (One of the leading Internet Portal in Taiwan). When he was a vice-president of Acer, Inc.. he lead the Internet service business for Acer, Inc. (2000~2004). He actively involved in ICANN activities (GAC, ALS, ccNSO, ASO) since 1999 til now. He also actively participated UN/WSIS (2004~2005), and UN/IGF (2006~2009). He is the CEO of NIIEPA (2004~now) - a non-profit organization in Taiwan. NIIEPA provide research and consultant services in Internet policy and Information security for government, research institutions, universities, and industry. Mr. Wu holds a mathematics BSc degree from Tunghai University (Taiwan, 1975), a MSc degree in Mathematics from University of Cincinnati (Ohio, USA, 1980), and MSc degree in Computer Science from Columbia University (NYC, 1982).

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 Rafik Dammak March 22, 2010

March 22, 2010

Hi Bruce, Thank you very much, it is enough materials to read for a while :) Regards Rafik 2010/3/21 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > > Hello Rafiq, > > > 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. > > > > > There are two papers available on the ICANN component of the costs. > > See: > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en. > pdf > > and > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en. > pdf > > There is also a paper on a benchmarking study on what is involved in > operating a registry. This was conducted by KPMG and compared 7 gTLDs > and 6 ccTLDs across 10 countries. > > See: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/benchmarking-report-15feb10-en. > pdf > > Note that there are also some letter of credit requirements etc to be > able to provide funding to operate a registry for I think three > additional years, if a registry operator chooses to cease providing that > function. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > >

1 0

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 Meeting
by Gomes, Chuck March 22, 2010

March 22, 2010

I will add the following item to our agenda for the Council meeting on 1 April. It seems to me that it would be helpful to try to form the joint community WG as soon as possible after our 1 April meeting and task them with developing a proposed charter for the longer term work of the group. Thoughts? Please inform your respective groups of this task that was initiated by the Board in Nairobi and seek their input. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:42 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; ICANN AtLarge Staff; gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: 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 Meeting To: Mr. Chuck Gomes, Chair of the GNSO Regarding: 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 Meeting. Chuck further to our recent conversation on the matter of next steps in response to Board Resolution 20 (copied below) of the ICANN Board Meeting held March 12th in Nairobi, as this matter has clear and important interest and ramifications to our SO and AC (the matter of costs for developing countries and for some community based applicants has been of continued concern to At-Large) I am writing to you as Chair of the GNSO to formally request the GNSO's consideration of the ALAC and GNSO forming a Joint WG to explore options regarding applicant assistance in the application for and operation of new gTLDs, that may be required in some exceptional circumstances, in response to this resolution. This new gTLD Applicant Assistance Program WG should be open to all stakeholders, and once formed, a call to join this Joint WG as either participant or observer should go out to all parts of ICANN. ALAC will if the GNSO is in agreement formally propose the creation of this WG at our meeting of March 23rd and look forward to feedback from you on how the GNSO wishes to proceed with the WG's charter, administration etc., so that we can begin activity in a timely manner to ensure a first report on WG activities can be available at the Brussels Meeting and so that if we deem it appropriate that at this meeting an opportunity can be taken for community consultation with a workshop or similar activity. In advance of the GNSO's formal response to this Joint WG proposal I will be adding this matter to our Agenda of the 23rd and asking the ALAC's gtld-wg to consider how it wishes to engage and integrate in this activity as either a committee of the whole, with the formation of a topic specific Work Team and/or nomination of specific representatives to this new WG. I will; also request that our staff prepare a Wiki space/commons linked to the gtld-wg space where the proposed Joint ALAC-GNSO-WG can operate and where the wider ICANN Community and stakeholders can openly contribute. Board resolution 20 in Nairobi: "20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation; Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and analysis; Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants; Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing countries. Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program. Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ." CI Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010

10 17

Continued Operations Instrument for new gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin March 22, 2010

March 22, 2010

Hello All, Note that a key component of new gTLDs, is that a new gTLD will be stable and that registrants in a new gTLD are protected in the event that a new gTLD applicant no longer operates the domain. The draft registry agreement in the Draft Applicant Guidebook contains the following provisions in Specification 8 - that requires a financial instrument to guarantee funds to continue to operate the registry for a further 3 years. I point this out - as it is an additional cost once a TLD is awarded - that funds would need to be allocated for the Continued Operations Instrument. Regards, Bruce Tonkin CONTINUED OPERATIONS INSTRUMENT 1. The Continued Operations Instrument shall (a) provide for sufficient financial resources to ensure the continued operation of the basic registry functions related to the TLD set forth in Section [__] of the Applicant Guidebook posted at [url to be inserted upon finalization of Applicant Guidebook] (which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Specification 8) for a period of three (3) years following any termination of this Agreement on or prior to the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, and (b) shall be in the form of either (i) an irrevocable standby letter of credit, or (ii) an irrevocable cash escrow deposit, each meeting the requirements set forth in Section [__] of the Applicant Guidebook posted at [url to be inserted upon finalization of Applicant Guidebook] (which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Specification 8).

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 Rafik Dammak March 21, 2010

March 21, 2010

Hello Bruce, Thank you very much, I have enough materials to read these days :) Regards Rafik 2010/3/21 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > > Hello Rafiq, > > > 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. > > > > > There are two papers available on the ICANN component of the costs. > > See: > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en. > pdf > > and > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en. > pdf > > There is also a paper on a benchmarking study on what is involved in > operating a registry. This was conducted by KPMG and compared 7 gTLDs > and 6 ccTLDs across 10 countries. > > See: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/benchmarking-report-15feb10-en. > pdf > > Note that there are also some letter of credit requirements etc to be > able to provide funding to operate a registry for I think three > additional years, if a registry operator chooses to cease providing that > function. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > >

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 Meeti
by Caroline Greer March 20, 2010

March 20, 2010

Bruce Many thanks for that additional information. Kind regards ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Sat Mar 20 00:48:13 2010 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 Caroline, >> I missed the Board meeting unfortunately and only have the resolution to go on for now. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of assistance / support was envisaged - was there more discussion on this at the meeting or was it left open and therefore up to the proposed WG? It was left open. During the EOI panel and various other forums during the week in ICANN - there were members of the developing world noting that the costs to participate in new gTLDs was high. This is certainly been a consistent message since the beginning of the new gTLD process, and the original intent of the new gTLD committee in the GNSO was to deal with this in a second round of new gTLDs to avoid gaming in the first round. The Board has simply made an open call for suggestions. At this stage they would need to be made on a cost recovery basis - ie ICANN is not changing the rules or costs for new gTLDs at this stage ("ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs"). The Board also noted that the application costs are a small proportion of the costs of operating a gTLD at high levels of reliability. The Board would be supportive if a group decided to form a foundation that organizations could donate to, or would be supportive if some in the industry offered some in-kind contributions (e.g some staff support or computing resources) to helping applications from the developing world. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Deadline for 1 April Council Meeting Motions and Reports
by Gomes, Chuck March 18, 2010

March 18, 2010

Please note that motions & reports for consideration in our 1 April Council meeting are due not later than Wednesday, 24 March (8 days in advance). Chuck

1 0

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 1 April 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry March 17, 2010

March 17, 2010

Dear All, Please find the Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 1 April 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-01apr10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_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 - Approved on 2010 * 15 March Special meeting - Approved on 25 March 2010. 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 2,2 Invitation of participants from the AC's and other SO's (Chuck Gomes) Item 3: Whois Studies (40 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: * Whois Studies Report: (insert link) * Public Comments: (insert link) Note that the public comment period ends today. * 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) 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 (10 minutes) 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+0DST 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/

1 0

FW: Zone File Access Concept Paper and the GNSO
by Glen de Saint Géry March 17, 2010

March 17, 2010

Forwarded from Craig Schwartz: Subject: GNSO and Constituency Input on HSTLD and ZFA Advisory Group Materials Dear GNSO Councilors and Constituency Members, The HSTLD (High Security TLD) and ZFA (Zone File Access) Advisory Groups seek your input by 8 April on their respective papers that were posted for public comment on 22 February. The papers and comment forum information are available at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22feb10-en.htm. Further, ICANN staff supporting these groups are available upon request to provide you with a brief presentation about the work. Please feel free to contact Craig Schwartz at craig.schwartz(a)icann.org<mailto:craig.schwartz@icann.org> to schedule a ZFA presentation or Andy Welch at andy.welch(a)icann.org<mailto:andy.welch@icann.org> for a HSTLD presentation. The work of these temporary, expert Advisory Groups is being done to develop solution(s) to the new gTLD program’s overarching issue of mitigating malicious conduct. These groups were formed following the 3 December 2009 announcement (see, http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03dec09-en.htm) soliciting participants. Additional information on HSTLD may be found at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-program-en.htm and ZFA at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/zone-file-access-en.htm. Thank you, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

1 0

Affirmation of Commitments: Candidates for the Accountability and Transparency Review Team
by Glen de Saint Géry March 17, 2010

March 17, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-16mar10-en.htm ________________________________ Affirmation of Commitments: Candidates for the Accountability and Transparency Review Team 16 March 2010 ICANN received 25 candidatures following the Call for Applicants<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03feb10-en.htm> for volunteer Review Team Members on the Accountability and Transparency review. All applicants indicate the SO/AC they seek to represent. SO/ACs will inform ICANN of the candidatures they wish to endorse by March 17th. ICANN now publishes all candidatures received<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-1-applications-en.htm>, pending SO/AC's endorsement decision. The names of endorsed candidates and of selected Review Team Members will be communicated as soon as available. ________________________________

1 0