April 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO
by Caroline Greer April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

I completely agree with you Tim. If Council does decide to issue comments, those comments should be focused on process issues. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that this focus is lacking in any of the public comments to date. The case raises questions around accountability, transparency and predictability and so I think it right that we at least consider it. ---------------- 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: Thu Apr 15 22:30:29 2010 Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO The draft options document does raise serious questions. Should the Board be able to pick and choose what it wants from the findings of the IRP (majority findings, minority findings, or parts of either), or should the decision be that it either accepts the findings of the Panel or rejects them? If the Board agrees with the finding, should it be able to decide to not act on those findings anyway (too much time has passed, too much has changed, etc)? It gets to the accountability and institutional confidence issues that the community has been hounding on for years (and hopefully the first AoC review team will finally resolve). If the Council should choose to comment, I would prefer that the comment be focused on these higher level issues and not the specifics of this particular case. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Thu, April 15, 2010 3:56 pm To: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> To be clear, my reluctance has nothing to do with the TLD itself. I have nightmarish visions of the proverbial slippery slope where Council becomes bombarded with requests for comment and/or intervention on a multitude of issues. Even if such requests came only from owners of new gTLD applications that fail, it's still a potentially big pool. Mary, if you're suggesting that this may be an opportunity for Council to issue a statement on when it will (or will not) comment, I'm all for it. K From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:50 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO I agree and also for the reasons outlined by Stephane. Personally I think it probably not something the Council as a whole should comment on, but it'd be remiss of us not to at least discuss it, with a view toward figuring out whether or not there ought to be just such a public statement on our part. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>To:GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 4/14/2010 11:16 AMSubject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO I think we have to talk about it for the reasons Stéphane states. Which admittedly is probably easier for me to say since I didn't live through it the last time around. Bill On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: LOL. I do think it's worth discussing if there is time during our next meeting. If people echo's Kristina's desire not to go anywhere near this, then that discussion will be short. But .XXX is a gTLD, it is within the purview of the GNSO, and the case does raise several procedural issues that I think lie at the core of ICANN's function (the main one being, obviously, whether the independent review panel's decisions actually mean anything). Stéphane Le 14 avr. 2010 à 15:54, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : My only interest in discussing would be to say that I don't want to touch this topic with a 10-foot-pole, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:52 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO If anyone would like to discuss this in our 21 April meeting, please say so and I will add it under Any Other Business. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:46 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO Councillors, Chuck and I were recently contacted by ICM Registry CEO Stuart Lawley. Stuart asked us if the GNSO Council might be willing to make a comment on the ICM process options (the comment period for that being currently underway). In response, I suggested that Stuart send us a draft of what kind of comment he would like to ask the Council to make, so that we could all at least consider it. Chuck explained to Stuart that the GNSO Council does not frequently make comments on behalf of the GNSO in response to ICANN comment periods, part of the reason for that being the difficulty we sometimes have in reaching consensus on such comments within the timeframe of an ICANN comment period. Neither of us indicated to Stuart that there would be any GNSO Council action following his request. You will find below the exact transcript of the text that Stuart sent us to forward to the Council in response to my suggestion. The idea being that if Council is interested in discussing this, then the text may serve as a starting point for that discussion. Thanks, Stéphane We would ask the GNSo , or indeed and of its members, to consider commenting to ICANN during the Public Comment Period that runs until May 10 on the Possible Process Options for ICM as outlined in the ICANN announcement http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm. Regardless of the nature of the sTLD we feel this is a watershed moment for ICANN in terms of its Transparency and Accountability and would like the Council to consider submitting a comment/statement along the lines of The GNSO urges ICANN to implement the findings of the Independent Review Panel in ICM Registry v. ICANN without delay by finalizing a registry agreement with ICM based on the rules established for the sTLD applications submitted in March, 2004. The merits of the .xxx top level domain are no longer on the table: rather, the only question now before the ICANN Board is whether or not it is prepared to respect the findings of a panel of independent judges in accordance with a procedure established by the ICANN bylaws. Those findings are: 1. That the ICANN Board determined on 1 June 2005 that the ICM Registry application met the criteria established for the sTLD round opened on December 15, 2003; 2. The Boards reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. 3. That ICANN should have proceeded to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry; and Those findings are clear, and the path forward is plain: The ICM Registrys application was submitted under the rules established by the Board for the sTLD round based on extensive community input. Having determined that the ICM application satisfied the eligibility criteria established for that round, all that remains is for ICANN to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry based on the contractual arrangements adopted for that round. Most of the options provided by staff for responding to the IRP declaration would apply new rules to ICM Registry. There is no principled basis for this approach, which would only compound the violations already identified in the IRP declaration. The Board should reject those options, respect the judgment of the Independent Review panel, and provide tangible proof of its willingness to be accountable to the community it serves. *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

1 0

RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO
by Tim Ruiz April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

The draft options document does raise serious questions. Should the Board be able to pick and choose what it wants from the findings of the IRP (majority findings, minority findings, or parts of either), or should the decision be that it either accepts the findings of the Panel or rejects them? If the Board agrees with the finding, should it be able to decide to not act on those findings anyway (too much time has passed, too much has changed, etc)? It gets to the accountability and institutional confidence issues that the community has been hounding on for years (and hopefully the first AoC review team will finally resolve). If the Council should choose to comment, I would prefer that the comment be focused on these higher level issues and not the specifics of this particular case. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Thu, April 15, 2010 3:56 pm To: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> To be clear, my reluctance has nothing to do with the TLD itself. I have nightmarish visions of the proverbial slippery slope where Council becomes bombarded with requests for comment and/or intervention on a multitude of issues. Even if such requests came only from owners of new gTLD applications that fail, it's still a potentially big pool. Mary, if you're suggesting that this may be an opportunity for Council to issue a statement on when it will (or will not) comment, I'm all for it. K From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:50 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO I agree and also for the reasons outlined by Stephane. Personally I think it probably not something the Council as a whole should comment on, but it'd be remiss of us not to at least discuss it, with a view toward figuring out whether or not there ought to be just such a public statement on our part. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>To:GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 4/14/2010 11:16 AMSubject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO I think we have to talk about it for the reasons Stéphane states. Which admittedly is probably easier for me to say since I didn't live through it the last time around. Bill On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: LOL. I do think it's worth discussing if there is time during our next meeting. If people echo's Kristina's desire not to go anywhere near this, then that discussion will be short. But .XXX is a gTLD, it is within the purview of the GNSO, and the case does raise several procedural issues that I think lie at the core of ICANN's function (the main one being, obviously, whether the independent review panel's decisions actually mean anything). Stéphane Le 14 avr. 2010 à 15:54, Rosette, Kristina a écrit : My only interest in discussing would be to say that I don't want to touch this topic with a 10-foot-pole, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:52 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO If anyone would like to discuss this in our 21 April meeting, please say so and I will add it under Any Other Business. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:46 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO Councillors, Chuck and I were recently contacted by ICM Registry CEO Stuart Lawley. Stuart asked us if the GNSO Council might be willing to make a comment on the ICM process options (the comment period for that being currently underway). In response, I suggested that Stuart send us a draft of what kind of comment he would like to ask the Council to make, so that we could all at least consider it. Chuck explained to Stuart that the GNSO Council does not frequently make comments on behalf of the GNSO in response to ICANN comment periods, part of the reason for that being the difficulty we sometimes have in reaching consensus on such comments within the timeframe of an ICANN comment period. Neither of us indicated to Stuart that there would be any GNSO Council action following his request. You will find below the exact transcript of the text that Stuart sent us to forward to the Council in response to my suggestion. The idea being that if Council is interested in discussing this, then the text may serve as a starting point for that discussion. Thanks, Stéphane We would ask the GNSo , or indeed and of its members, to consider commenting to ICANN during the Public Comment Period that runs until May 10 on the Possible Process Options for ICM as outlined in the ICANN announcement http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm. Regardless of the nature of the sTLD we feel this is a watershed moment for ICANN in terms of its Transparency and Accountability and would like the Council to consider submitting a comment/statement along the lines of The GNSO urges ICANN to implement the findings of the Independent Review Panel in ICM Registry v. ICANN without delay by finalizing a registry agreement with ICM based on the rules established for the sTLD applications submitted in March, 2004. The merits of the .xxx top level domain are no longer on the table: rather, the only question now before the ICANN Board is whether or not it is prepared to respect the findings of a panel of independent judges in accordance with a procedure established by the ICANN bylaws. Those findings are: 1. That the ICANN Board determined on 1 June 2005 that the ICM Registry application met the criteria established for the sTLD round opened on December 15, 2003; 2. The Boards reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. 3. That ICANN should have proceeded to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry; and Those findings are clear, and the path forward is plain: The ICM Registrys application was submitted under the rules established by the Board for the sTLD round based on extensive community input. Having determined that the ICM application satisfied the eligibility criteria established for that round, all that remains is for ICANN to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry based on the contractual arrangements adopted for that round. Most of the options provided by staff for responding to the IRP declaration would apply new rules to ICM Registry. There is no principled basis for this approach, which would only compound the violations already identified in the IRP declaration. The Board should reject those options, respect the judgment of the Independent Review panel, and provide tangible proof of its willingness to be accountable to the community it serves. *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

1 0

ICM registry request for GNSO
by Stéphane Van Gelder April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

Councillors, Chuck and I were recently contacted by ICM Registry CEO Stuart Lawley. Stuart asked us if the GNSO Council might be willing to make a comment on the ICM process options (the comment period for that being currently underway). In response, I suggested that Stuart send us a draft of what kind of comment he would like to ask the Council to make, so that we could all at least consider it. Chuck explained to Stuart that the GNSO Council does not frequently make comments on behalf of the GNSO in response to ICANN comment periods, part of the reason for that being the difficulty we sometimes have in reaching consensus on such comments within the timeframe of an ICANN comment period. Neither of us indicated to Stuart that there would be any GNSO Council action following his request. You will find below the exact transcript of the text that Stuart sent us to forward to the Council in response to my suggestion. The idea being that if Council is interested in discussing this, then the text may serve as a starting point for that discussion. Thanks, Stéphane We would ask the GNSo , or indeed and of its members, to consider commenting to ICANN during the Public Comment Period that runs until May 10 on the Possible Process Options for ICM as outlined in the ICANN announcement http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm. Regardless of the nature of the sTLD we feel this is a watershed moment for ICANN in terms of its Transparency and Accountability and would like the Council to consider submitting a comment/statement along the lines of The GNSO urges ICANN to implement the findings of the Independent Review Panel in ICM Registry v. ICANN without delay by finalizing a registry agreement with ICM based on the rules established for the sTLD applications submitted in March, 2004. The merits of the .xxx top level domain are no longer on the table: rather, the only question now before the ICANN Board is whether or not it is prepared to respect the findings of a panel of independent judges in accordance with a procedure established by the ICANN bylaws. Those findings are: 1. That the ICANN Board determined on 1 June 2005 that the ICM Registry application met the criteria established for the sTLD round opened on December 15, 2003; 2. The Boards reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. 3. That ICANN should have proceeded to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry; and Those findings are clear, and the path forward is plain: The ICM Registry’s application was submitted under the rules established by the Board for the sTLD round based on extensive community input. Having determined that the ICM application satisfied the eligibility criteria established for that round, all that remains is for ICANN to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry based on the contractual arrangements adopted for that round. Most of the “options” provided by staff for responding to the IRP declaration would apply new rules to ICM Registry. There is no principled basis for this approach, which would only compound the violations already identified in the IRP declaration. The Board should reject those options, respect the judgment of the Independent Review panel, and provide tangible proof of its willingness to be accountable to the community it serves.

5 7

FW: [GAC] Draft GAC letter to ICANN re LEA Due Diligence and RAA amendment proposals
by Gomes, Chuck April 14, 2010

April 14, 2010

Please note the attached letters to ICANN as submitted by Janis recommending "Endorsement of the "Law Enforcement Recommended Amendments to ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and Due Diligence Recommendations"". Glen - Please forward these to the RAA WG. Chuck ________________________________ From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@icann.org] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:41 PM To: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org Cc: 'ICANN Board ICANN Board List'; gac(a)gac.icann.org; Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: [GAC] Draft GAC letter to ICANN re LEA Due Diligence and RAA amendment proposals Dear Peter, In the Nairobi Communiqué the GAC committed to send to ICANN the G8, Interpol and COE Octopus statements of support for the law enforcement agencies' proposals. In this respect, pls find attached the GAC letter and corresponding annexes: · Interpol Working Party on IT Crime-Europe Statement · G8 Lyon-Roma Group High Tech Crime Subgroup Statement · Council of Europe Project on Cybercrime, "Messages from the Octopus Conference" Best regards JK

5 5

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 April 2010.
by Glen de Saint Géry April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 April 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-21apr10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_21_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 11:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 04:00 PDT; 06:00 CDT; 07:00 EDT; 08:00 Buenos Aires; 08:00 Brazil; 13:00 CEST; 15:00 Moscow; 16:00 Pakistan; 19:00 Hong Kong; 20:00 Tokyo, 21:00 Melbourne 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 previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * 1 April 2010 meeting - Approved 16 April 2010 : (insert URL) Item 2: GNSO Improvements (20 Minutes) 2.1 OSC Communication & Coordination (CCT) WT Recommendations 2.1.1 Refer to CCT WT Report Part 1: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf 2.1.2 Overview of recommendations (Julie Hedlund) 2.1.3 Discussion 2.1.4 Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions 2.1.5 Vote 2.2 OCS GNSO Council Operations WT Recommendations 2.2.1 Overview of recommendations (Julie Hedlund) 2.2.2 Discussion 2.2.3 Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions 2.2.4 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on these motions.) Item 3: Whois Studies (30 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: * Whois Studies Report: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion#<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 ended 1 April 2010.) * Public comment: Draft NORC Report on Whois Accuracy, (comment period ends 15 April 2010) Presentation Slides from 1 April 2010 Council meeting: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/whois-studies-presentation-01apr10-en.… Follow-up to WHOIS Studies discussion on 1 April 2010 prepared by Liz Gasster, 5 April 2010: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-follow-up-discussion-05apr10-en.pdf 3.2 Summary of proposals for Whois Study budget requests from the GNSO 3.3 Discussion 3.4 Next steps? * 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 (30 minutes) 4.1 Refer to Recommendations by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT): http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf 4.2 Overview of Recommendations (Olga Cavalli/Ken Bour) 4.3 Discussion 4.4 Next steps? 4.4.1 Motion https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions4.4.2 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) Item 5: Joint SO/AC WG to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs (5 Minutes) 5.1 Status update (Chuck) So far, GAC and ALAC plan to participate Olof Nordling will be the lead New gTLD Implementation Team Staff person supporting this WG 5.2 Request for GNSO participants Item 6: Other Business (15 minutes) 6.1 GNSO Comments regarding the FY11 Operating Plan and Budget? 6.2 AGP Policy overview of Staff report (Craig Schwartz) 6.2.1 Brief overview of Staff report (Craig Schwartz) * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly? For example: o Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? o If a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? 6.2.2 Follow-up actions? 6.3 Mike Rodenbaugh motion regarding the VeriSign .net Registry Services proposal for a Domain Name Exchange service 6.3.1 Refer to the motion at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions6.3.2 Discussion 6.3.3 Vote Note that absentee voting will not apply. 6.4 Any other business? Item 7 Status updates (5 minutes) 7.1 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-21april10-en.htm Item 8: The updated GNSO Project Status List (5 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) 11:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 04:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 12:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 21:00 ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Invitation to participate in the Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support
by Glen de Saint Géry April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-13apr10-en.htm Invitation to participate in the Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support In Nairobi, the ICANN Board invited the community to suggest suitable ways to provide support for New gTLD applicants, see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20 . The GNSO Council has since resolved to launch a Working Group to address this matter, see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201004 , inviting all interested ICANN SOs and ACs to join in the effort. The work is planned to commence in late April and to conclude in time before the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June this year. All those interested in participating in this Working Group are hereby encouraged to enlist by email to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>, no later than 26 April 2010. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
by Tim Ruiz April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

As far as I am aware it is a technical limitation of the current EPP implementations. So I believe if a registry wanted to offer one month registration increments they could. They may choose to go through the Registry Services Evaluation Process, but I'm not sure that it would be required. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, April 12, 2010 11:26 pm To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Like Alan, I cannot find any direct requirement for a minimum registration period of one year but I will check with our legal team. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:59 PM > To: Alan Greenberg; Tim Ruiz; Gomes, Chuck > Cc: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request > > Chuck? > > > Adrian Kinderis > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 12:20 PM > To: Adrian Kinderis; Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck > Cc: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request > > Adrian, upon a bit of research, I cannot find anywhere in the > existing registry agreements that set the minimum limit of 1 > year. The Functional Specifications use the expression "for > terms of up to ten years". > > As Tim mentioned, it seems that the current EPP > implementations use a unit of "years", but the RFCs allow for > "months" as well. Perhaps there is a requirement to use > "years" buried somewhere, but I couldn't find it. The closest > I could come to it is that the Maximum Price to a registrar > is quoted as an annual amount. > > Alan > > At 12/04/2010 09:36 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: > >I think you are confusing billing and registration. > > > >The registration period must be a minimum of one > >year in the current Registry Systems. > > > >How a Registrar charges for that is up to them > >(and indeed it appears some do it monthly)? > > > >In the new gTLD world there may well be > >Registries that accept monthly registrations > >depending on their business models. They would > >need to determine appropriate policy and have it > >ratified with ICANN one would presume. > > > >Thanks > > > > > >Adrian Kinderis > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > >Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:59 AM > >To: Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck > >Cc: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council > >Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request > > > > > >My mistake. I assumed that since the minimum > >extension on a transfer was one year, the minimum > >initial registration was also. > > > >Tim, does that mean that a gTLD registry could > >unilaterally decide to support EPP with a unit of > >months (subject to the 10 year max) and therefore > >start accepting monthly registrations? > > > >Alan > > > >At 12/04/2010 06:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > >Registry EPP implementations only support registrations in > increments of > > >one year. A registrar can offer a monthly plan (and many > do), but they > > >have to pay a year up front to the registry. But we're both > > >contractually bound to registering names for a maximum of 10 years. > > > > > >Tim > > > > > >-------- Original Message -------- > > >Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request > > >From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > >Date: Mon, April 12, 2010 4:21 pm > > >To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, > > ><icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > >Alan, > > > > > >I do not believe that there is any policy or requirement > that registrars > > >offer registration periods of one year. And it should be > noted that not > > >registrars require one-year registrations. > > > > > >Chuck > > > > > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > > >On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > > >Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:51 PM > > >To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council ' > > >Subject: Re: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request > > > > > > > > > > > >Mike, one of the other things that the registry service would do is > > >effectively introduce the concept of reducing the effective minimum > > >registration period from one year to one month, without > the benefit of > > >any ICANN policy discussion. That may be worth mentioning > in the motion. > > > > > >Alan > > > > > >At 12/04/2010 02:28 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > > >The BC makes the following motion for Council > consideration in our next > > >meeting, and would appreciate a Ã¢â‚¬˜secondÃ¢€™. In sum, > we request that > > >the Counciuncil ask ICANN Staff to Ã¢€˜slow > > downÃ¢€™ the processrocess of approving > > >VersignÃ¢€™s latest RSEP proposal andand accept community > input on it. > > >Thanks. > > > > > > > > >Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional > > >registry service called Ã¢€œdomain exchangeÃ¢€Â fÂ for > the .net TLD. > > > >http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf > > > > > > > > >Whereas, it appears the proposal may permit resumption of abusive > > >Ã¢€œÅ“domain tastingÃ¢€Â activities which > > have been curbed bby the AGP Limits > > >policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the > proposed registry > > >service must be considered. > > > > > >RESOLVED: > > > > > >The Council requests that Staff make the preliminary > determination that > > >this RSEP proposal requires further study and public > comment, because it > > >could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or > > >competition. > > > > > > > > > > > >Mike Rodenbaugh > > >RODENBAUGH LAW > > >tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 > > >http://rodenbaugh.com > >

1 0

Motion for Council consideration
by Olga Cavalli April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

Dear Councilors: The WPM Drafting team makes the following motion, which references the letter and document sent to the GNSO Council list last Friday. We look forward for your comments during or next GNSO council meeting. Regads, Olga Cavalli Chair, WPM-DT 12 April 2010 *RESOLUTION:* WHEREAS, the ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a 2008-2009 Work Team Attendance Study which confirmed that volunteer participation has been suffering and languishing. WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, considering the advice of Staff, organized a Drafting Team at the Seoul ICANN meeting for the purpose of developing a GNSO Work Prioritization model and procedure; WHEREAS, the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) has completed its deliberations and developed a written procedure recommended for inclusion in the GNSO Operating Procedures as Chapter 6 plus an accompanying ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>; WHEREAS, the WPM-DT has developed a timeline of activities (see below) that it recommends be adopted in order that the first Work Prioritization effort can be completed by the ICANN Brussels meeting; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts the deliverable of the WPM-DT, thanks the team for its efforts, and approves the use of Chapter 6 and the ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>for conducting its first Work Prioritization effort. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on this amendment to the GNSO Operating Procedures and reserves the right to modify the procedures described in Chapter 6 and the ANNEX<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>after the conclusion of both the public comment period and the first Work Prioritization effort. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council supports the recommended timeline (see below) for conducting the first Work Prioritization effort and directs the GNSO Secretariat to make arrangements consistent with its dates and activities. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council take action on Chapter 6 and the ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>with regard to the GNSO Operating Procedures as soon as possible after completion and analysis of the first Work Prioritization effort. *TIMELINE FOR FIRST WORK PRIORITIZATION EFFORT* *Dates* *Activities (per proposed ANNEX to Chapter 6<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> )* 26-30 April ANNEX Step 1: Staff prepares its recommendations for Eligible and Non-Eligible Projects and their associated classifications 30 April Staff distributes recommended Project Lists to GNSO Council and all relevant GNSO structures (e.g. Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, ALAC). 3-19 May Chair asks for Council approval (via email list) to adopt or modify Staff’s recommendations 20 May Council Meeting Eligible Projects List approved by Council 21 May - 7 June ANNEX Step 2: Individual Councilor ratings completed (extended to 17 calendar days) and delivered to Staff 8-15 June ANNEX Step 2.3: Staff consolidates ratings and analyzes for commonality; prepares for Step 3. 19 June (or 20 June) ANNEX Step 3: Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings 23 June Council Meeting (Brussels) ANNEX Step 4: Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org.

2 1

FW: ccNSO comment to DNS-CERT proposal
by Glen de Saint Géry April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek Hi, The ccNSO has submitted a comment to ICANN's DNS-CERT proposal - it is now posted at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-comments-on-dns-cert-proposal-12… Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

My mistake. I assumed that since the minimum extension on a transfer was one year, the minimum initial registration was also. Tim, does that mean that a gTLD registry could unilaterally decide to support EPP with a unit of months (subject to the 10 year max) and therefore start accepting monthly registrations? Alan At 12/04/2010 06:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Registry EPP implementations only support registrations in increments of >one year. A registrar can offer a monthly plan (and many do), but they >have to pay a year up front to the registry. But we're both >contractually bound to registering names for a maximum of 10 years. > >Tim > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request >From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >Date: Mon, April 12, 2010 4:21 pm >To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ><icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Alan, > >I do not believe that there is any policy or requirement that registrars >offer registration periods of one year. And it should be noted that not >registrars require one-year registrations. > >Chuck > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:51 PM >To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council ' >Subject: Re: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request > > > >Mike, one of the other things that the registry service would do is >effectively introduce the concept of reducing the effective minimum >registration period from one year to one month, without the benefit of >any ICANN policy discussion. That may be worth mentioning in the motion. > >Alan > >At 12/04/2010 02:28 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: >The BC makes the following motion for Council consideration in our next >meeting, and would appreciate a âsecondâ. In sum, we request that >the Council ask ICANN Staff to âslow downâ the process of approving >Versignâs latest RSEP proposal and accept community input on it. >Thanks. > > >Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional >registry service called âdomain exchangeâ for the .net TLD. >http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf > > >Whereas, it appears the proposal may permit resumption of abusive >âdomain tastingâ activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits >policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry >service must be considered. > >RESOLVED: > >The Council requests that Staff make the preliminary determination that >this RSEP proposal requires further study and public comment, because it >could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or >competition. > > > >Mike Rodenbaugh >RODENBAUGH LAW >tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 >http://rodenbaugh.com

3 4

Motion to Accept the GNSO Improvements OSC CCT Report and initiate comment period
by Gomes, Chuck April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

I hereby make the following motion for consideration in our 21 April Council meeting. A second is welcome. Chuck Motion to Accept the GNSO Improvements OSC CCT Report and initiate comment period WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm> ); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT), which was chartered to focus on one of the five operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; WHEREAS, the CCT completed its deliberations and forwarded its Consolidated Final Recommendations to the OSC on 9 April 2010; WHEREAS, the OSC approved the CCT's Consolidated Final Recommendations (link TBD) and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on or before 12 April 2010; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council accepts the deliverable of the CCT as its final set of recommendations and directs Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the CCT's report. RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.

2 1

RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
by Tim Ruiz April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

Registry EPP implementations only support registrations in increments of one year. A registrar can offer a monthly plan (and many do), but they have to pay a year up front to the registry. But we're both contractually bound to registering names for a maximum of 10 years. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, April 12, 2010 4:21 pm To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Alan, I do not believe that there is any policy or requirement that registrars offer registration periods of one year. And it should be noted that not registrars require one-year registrations. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:51 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council ' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request Mike, one of the other things that the registry service would do is effectively introduce the concept of reducing the effective minimum registration period from one year to one month, without the benefit of any ICANN policy discussion. That may be worth mentioning in the motion. Alan At 12/04/2010 02:28 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: The BC makes the following motion for Council consideration in our next meeting, and would appreciate a ‘second’. In sum, we request that the Council ask ICANN Staff to ‘slow down’ the process of approving Versign’s latest RSEP proposal and accept community input on it. Thanks. Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional registry service called “domain exchange” for the .net TLD. http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Whereas, it appears the proposal may permit resumption of abusive “domain tasting” activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. RESOLVED: The Council requests that Staff make the preliminary determination that this RSEP proposal requires further study and public comment, because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com

2 1

Motion re VRSN RSEP request
by Mike Rodenbaugh April 12, 2010

April 12, 2010

The BC makes the following motion for Council consideration in our next meeting, and would appreciate a 'second'. In sum, we request that the Council ask ICANN Staff to 'slow down' the process of approving Versign's latest RSEP proposal and accept community input on it. Thanks. Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional registry service called "domain exchange" for the .net TLD. http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Whereas, it appears the proposal may permit resumption of abusive "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. RESOLVED: The Council requests that Staff make the preliminary determination that this RSEP proposal requires further study and public comment, because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

4 5

VI WG report
by Stéphane Van Gelder April 12, 2010

April 12, 2010

Dear Councillors, Please find below the latest VI WG report. My thanks to co-chair Mikey Roberts for his work in drafting this. Stéphane Vertical Integration Policy Development Process (VI PDP) - Chairs Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor - Council Liaison - Stéphane van Gelder The working group initiated a public comment period and solicited constituency-statements. Scope, timing and deliverable questions have been resolved -- a preliminary work schedule has been published, major deliverables will be ready for review during the Brussels meeting. The working group was unable to arrive at consensus around Objective 5 of the charter -- the question was referred back to the Council and has been resolved. The working group is focusing on iterative development of "proposals" as the primary work product -- proposal sub-groups are already active, with the prospect of one or two more coming online. The working group launched a parallel effort (and sub-team) to evaluate proposals using definitions, use-cases, and evaluation criteria. After further consideration, and noting the extraordinary size of the working group, the WG was closed to new members as of 31-March.

1 0

FW: Final consolidated report OSC: CCT : for Council
by Gomes, Chuck April 12, 2010

April 12, 2010

Attached is the final report from the OSC Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT WT) that has been approved for Council action by the OSC. Please forward this to your respective groups right away for review and discussion for possible action in the Council meeting on 21 April. Chuck ________________________________ From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:41 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-osc(a)icann.org Subject: Final consolidated report OSC: CCT : for Council Chuck, on behalf of the OSC I take pleasure in forwarding a final report from one of the work teams - the CCT - Communication & Coordination Team. This report has been reviewed and approved (in two parts) by the OSC and is now forwarded to Council as one consolidated report. My thanks to the CCT team and its chair Mason Cole. This report once adopted by Council should conclude the work of the CCT and allow it to disband. Implementation will for the most part shift to staff. Specific implementation issues that require consultation would best be done by wider consultation at the time. Philip Sheppard Chair OSC

1 0

Transmittal of Proposed Section 6 and ANNEX to GNSO Operating Procedures
by Olga Cavalli April 12, 2010

April 12, 2010

To: GNSO Council From: Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) Dear Councilors: Since being organized by the GNSO Council at the Seoul ICANN meeting (Nov 2009), the WPM-DT has been working diligently over the past five months to scope out and complete a set of activities leading to a proposed methodology for prioritizing the GNSO’s work. As its primary deliverable, the team has drafted a document ( http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf) and recommends that it be approved for inclusion in the GNSO Operating Procedures as Chapter 6 along with its accompanying ANNEX. The procedure contains three main sections: Purpose (6.1), Scope (6.2), and Methodology (6.3) followed by an ANNEX, which includes detailed steps/procedures that may be amended as the Council gains experience with the approach. The DT’s goals in developing the methodology were to ensure that the process: 1. is user-friendly, unambiguous, and straightforward to execute; 2. produces realistic outputs that will help the Council to make effective management decisions; and 3. is structured as an on-going task that accommodates change including the introduction of new projects as they are proposed in the future. The DT believes that prioritization is an important first step of the Council’s broader project management role, which should be further defined and will require appropriate tools to assist in the active and effective management of the workload. To facilitate these managerial responsibilities, the DT recommends that: 1) a process be developed to allow timely tracking of GNSO projects on an on-going basis; and 2) its process be supported with a web-based software toolkit (e.g. excellent open source applications are available) that will assign Staff and Community resources to projects/tasks and offer time/milestone tracking plus advanced collaboration capabilities allowing work to be managed efficiently, effectively, and transparently. The DT remains available to assist the Council in the implementation of these new Work Prioritization procedures and to work with any other team(s) on scoping out the program/project management disciplines that will become central in the Council’s role as manager of the policy development process. Olga Cavalli Chair, WPM-DT 9 April 2010

3 2

ICANN Consultation on New gTLD Agreement Amendment Process and Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process
by Glen de Saint Géry April 9, 2010

April 9, 2010

Forwarded From: Craig Schwartz (http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07apr10-en.htm) ICANN Consultation on New gTLD Agreement Amendment Process and Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

1 0

Webinar Surveys Whois Requirements, Past and Future
by Glen de Saint Géry April 9, 2010

April 9, 2010

http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09apr10-en.htm Webinar Surveys Whois Requirements, Past and Future *Tuesday, 20 April 2010. 17:00 UTC (10:00 Marina del Rey, 13:00 Washington D.C, 19:00 Brussels) *Tuesday, 4 May 2010, 06:00 UTC (09:00 Riyadh, 11:00 Islamabad, 15:00 Seoul, 16:00 Sydney) Prepared content will be identical at both sessions. (Live audience questions may vary.) The webinar is offered in English. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Letter to board on DNS CERT WG
by Gomes, Chuck April 9, 2010

April 9, 2010

Please note the following response that Chris, Cheryl and I sent to Thomas Narten in follow-up to an email he sent as in his capacity as a Board liaison regarding our letter about the DNS-CERT. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:45 AM To: 'Thomas Narten'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: RE: Letter to board on DNS CERT WG Thomas, Given the 25 March letter to Peter and Rod was a joint ALAC, gNSO and ccNSO comment, we felt it appropriate for us to also collaborate on a response to your questions. To help clarify our concerns, we believe it is important to draw a distinction between ICANN's processes of "community interaction" and "public comment". We believe that, in releasing a draft proposal for a DNS-CERT, ICANN staff skipped a number of important steps in the bottom-up policy development process. Atypically, ICANN's first formal engagement on the issue was the proposal of a significantly developed solution to perceived DNS security problems. It skipped to the later public comment phase without first engaging the community in a dialogue regarding the nature of its concerns, an assessment of threats and vulnerabilities and collaborative consideration of possible solutions. When a significant issue is identified, the ICANN Board usually directs a group of relevant ICANN stakeholders to consider the matter at hand and develop a strategy for addressing it. Consistent with our proposal, this consultation often takes the form of a public forum at a physical ICANN meeting followed by the establishment of a cross-constituency Working Group. This represents a preliminary stage of "community interaction". While ICANN staff often develops an issues paper to support the group's work, we believe the current document does not meet this need. The Working Group should be tasked with identifying and developing responses to the questions that have already been addressed in the proposed DNSCERT plan - . What is the nature and extent of the problem? . Do current structures and efforts provide an adequate response? . If not, should a DNS-CERT be established? . What precisely to we mean by a "DNS-CERT"? . Should ICANN undertake this work? . What areas would the DNS-CERT work in? . Should it be established as a gTLD DNS-CERT and ccTLDs encouraged to participate? Only after this process has occurred, and a mitigation strategy developed, would ICANN seek "public comment" on any proposed solution. In summary, we share ICANN's view that the security and stability of the DNS is an important strategic priority. As such, if threats to the DNS are deemed to be severe enough and current response mechanisms inadequate, we would welcome community consideration of a proposed response, including the possibility of a DNS-CERT. We believe that ICANN's typical working methods have not been followed in the development of the DNS-CERT business case and, through our joint letter, are encouraging the ICANN Board and staff to take a step back to ensure that an appropriate, consensus-based, bottom-up policy development process is followed. We hope this clarifies our position though would be happy to discuss this with you, or any other Board member, in further detail. Regards, Chris Disspain, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Chuck Gomes > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Sunday, 28 March 2010 05:06 > To: Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Chris Disspain > Subject: Letter to board on DNS CERT WG > > Hi. > > I read your letter with interest and would like to understand a bit > better what is motivating it. I'm asking as an interested board > member, trying to understand what the real underlying issue is. > > The DNS CERT paper (as I understand it) is just a proposal. It would > presumably go through a standard set of public > discussions/feedback/etc. before ever going into effect. Would that > not be sufficient to get community feedback? I.e, why form a joint WG? > That isn't the normal response to proposals. What is different about > this one that raises it to the level of needing a special WG? > > Thanks! > > Thomas > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database > 4978 (20100326) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5011 (20100408) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

1 0

Public Comment: Draft FY11 Community Travel Support Guidelines
by Glen de Saint Géry April 8, 2010

April 8, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#travel-support-2011 Public Comment: Draft FY11 Community Travel Support Guidelines 8 April 2010 Explanation: A public comment period has opened today for 30 days on the topic of community travel support to ICANN meetings. In addition to Board members and staff attending ICANN international meetings, about 100 members of the ICANN community receive travel support. The travel guidelines specific how community members are selected to receive travel support. The budget impacts on ICANN of community travel support amount to nearly $1.5 million. Community members are invited to provide feedback on the proposed FY11 Travel guidelines. The proposed guidelines are here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelin… [PDF, 212 KB] The public comment period will close on 7 May 2010. If you wish to send in a comment, email travel-support-2011(a)icann.org. All comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-2011/. Related links: Travel Guidelines, travel summaries, and travel reports: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder - Motions are due by 13 April
by Gomes, Chuck April 7, 2010

April 7, 2010

Remember that motions and any documents for discussion in our 21 April meeting are due by Thursday, 13 April. Chuck

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 1 April 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry April 7, 2010

April 7, 2010

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 1 April 2010. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#apr on Friday, 16 April 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Whois Studies
by Gomes, Chuck April 7, 2010

April 7, 2010

Under Agenda Item 3 (Whois Studies) on 1 April, Council members were encouraged to discuss and evaluate the Whois studies with their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies and be prepared to provide budget direction to submit a request for funds for Fiscal Year 11 at the next Council meeting on 21 April 2010. In that meeting our goal will be to discuss specific budget recommendations for Whois Study funding. If you have not already done so, please discuss this with your respective groups. I strongly encourage submittal of proposals for funding in advance so if any of your group members have ideas, please submit them to the Council list, preferably at least eight days in advance of 21 April so that the rest of us can share the proposals with our groups before the meeting. Thanks, Chuck

1 0

Notice of New Registry Service Proposal
by Patrick Jones April 6, 2010

April 6, 2010

ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on a request from VeriSign to offer a Domain Name Exchange service in dot-NET. Information on the proposal can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#201004. Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry services proposal to registryservice at icann.org, this is not notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry Services Evaluation Process can be found at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/. Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Senior Manager, Continuity & Risk Management Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 patrick.jones(a)icann.org patrickjones.tel

1 0

Response to request from GNSO Council for follow up information on WHOIS studies
by Liz Gasster April 6, 2010

April 6, 2010

All, On the GNSO Council's 1 April 2010 call, Council members began to discuss staff's recent report analyzing information gathered to-date on proposed studies of WHOIS. That report is posted here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… , summarized by slides: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/whois-studies-presentation-01apr10-en.…. On the call, Council members suggested that it would be helpful to identify the WHOIS policy issues that each proposed study is intended to inform. Recognizing that there is a long history of debate, Council members also wanted to understand better the nature of the concerns and viewpoints about these studies that have been expressed to-date. The following is an initial response to that request. Most of the content was extracted from the original study proposals themselves, since study proposers were asked to specifically state the "utility" of each study being proposed. That means that the ideas stated are often in the words of the study proponents and may not be considered "neutral". Some additional ideas were gleaned from past council and working group discussions. While I'm at it, in the attached I also offer some thoughts and insights shared by others on the potential policy "relevance" of other pending WHOIS studies. It might be helpful to mention that as I assembled this list I noticed that the list includes many things we might learn; it is less expansive on precisely how policies might change. It also might be worthwhile for the Council to talk more about that in your upcoming discussion. Note that I did not wade into speculating on who the likely proponents or critics of various studies would be. I tried to extract ideas that have been stated already and I would encourage the Council members to offer the views of their stakeholder groups and constituencies, including amplifying, clarifying or correcting anything I've included in this document. Note: This is a working document and does not constitute or reflect the views of ICANN on any pending or proposed WHOIS study. Thanks, Liz Liz Gasster Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

1 0