April 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

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