April 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

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