April 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Upcoming ICANN Fellowship Webinar: Share the Love
by Glen de Saint Géry April 5, 2010

April 5, 2010

Forwarded From: Janice Douma Lange On 28 April 2010, ICANN staff will describe the Fellowship Program in an interactive webinar, to be held at 18:00-19:00 GMT/UTC. We would like to engage you in outreach on ICANN's behalf, to distribute the announcement of the Webinar on the Fellowship Program. Please encourage those who may not be aware of the program, have shown interest but are still not sure about the program's intent or benefits, or need a refresher course to register on the eLearning page of the ICANN website and call into this webinar later this month. With outreach and engagement, we will bring new participants into the ICANN community, and with new participants, eventually new ideas and leadership to continue carrying the mission and vision of a truly global internet into the future. Fellowship Program Overview - Register<http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/e71529160/event/registration.html> Separate emails went out to other "friends of fellowship" and constituency groups.... Thanks always for your support! Janice

1 0

AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry
by Craig Schwartz April 4, 2010

April 4, 2010

Dear Councilors, The AGP Limits Policy contains a provision that requires ICANN staff to provide semi-annual updates to the GSNO on the implementation of the Policy. To date ICANN has issued two reports, the first in June 2009 and the second in December 2009. With excessive AGP deletes down by 99.7%, the Policy is achieving its desired outcome and this was stated in the last report. Also noted in the last report were some registrar complaints about exemptions requests that had been denied when the basis for the request was fraud. >From the 14 December 2009 report, ICANN noted: A question the GNSO Council may wish to consider in the future is whether modifications to the Policy are necessary and/or appropriate given the results and community reaction to date. For example, should the GNSO Council consider defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly?" During the policy development process on domain tasting some community members suggested that the mitigation of instances of consumer fraud may be a legitimate use of AGP deletes. Additionally, 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? Staff recommends that the GSNO consider whether further work is needed in light of the fact that excessive AGP deletes are down by 99.7%. Staff further recommends that the Council consider whether semi-annual reports should be continued and if so, with what frequency? I'm happy to join the next GNSO call to discuss this and to answer any questions you may have. Best, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

4 4

FW: ICANN News Alert -- The Accountability and Transparency Affirmation Review Team
by Glen de Saint Géry April 2, 2010

April 2, 2010

FYI http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02apr10-en.htm ________________________________ The Accountability and Transparency Affirmation Review Team Selected Members 2 April 2010 ICANN publishes today the names of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team members<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-1-applications-en.htm> selected by the two Affirmation-mandated Selectors: Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair of the ICANN Board, and Janis Karklins, Chair of the GAC. ________________________________ Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine<http://www.icann.org/en/magazine/>

1 0

Feedback on Framework for FY11 Ops Plan and Budget
by Glen de Saint Géry April 2, 2010

April 2, 2010

Dear Councillors, With reference to the discussion at the Council meeting yesterday for sending comments to the proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Plan and Budget: ( http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2011) may I share a forward from Doug Brent: "On the specific issue of the budget, the good news is that the community really has two opportunities to comment. One now, and one after the posting of the first real draft budget on 17 May. And, if comments are already underway on the budget framework document, they will apply equally well to the draft budget itself (one is derived from the other). Budget consideration by the Board is still two-and-one-half months away." Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 1 April 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry April 2, 2010

April 2, 2010

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 1 April 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20100401.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#apr Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Notice of New Registry Services Proposal Posted
by Patrick Jones April 2, 2010

April 2, 2010

ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on a request from Neustar to offer gTLD Registry Lock in dot-BIZ. Information on the proposal can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#201003. ICANN has previously approved a similar request from VeriSign, http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009005. 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/. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Regards, 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

GNSO Council Resolution 1 April 2010A Joint SO/AC WG on new gTLD Applicant support
by Glen de Saint Géry April 1, 2010

April 1, 2010

\ Dear All, Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, the following resolution was passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 1 April 2010. MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT: Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Olga Cavalli amended by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Tim Ruiz Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying and about the material requirements for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs and material conditions might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing regions, from cultural/linguistic groups and from non-profit groups such as philanthropies, Whereas, on 13 March 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 20 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20) requesting that stakeholders work with their respective ACs and SOs to form a working group to provide a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to fulfill this Board request, and to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to such new GTLD applicants, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs, and the goal of not creating further delays to the new gTLD process; Resolved further, that Rafik Dammak shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint SO/AC working group; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Chair shall within 48 hours of this motion inform the Chairs of other SO's and the AC's of this action and encourage their participation; Resolved further, that ICANN Staff shall within seven calendar days of this motion identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed; Resolved further, that the staff support assigned to this working group shall within 48 hours after the support tools are arranged distribute an invitation for working group participants as widely as possible within the SO/AC community; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall initiate its activities within 28 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the participating SO's and AC's, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim co-chair with the liaison(s) from other SO's and AC's; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall as its first action items: i) elect a chair or co-chairs; ii) establish meeting times as needed; and iii) develop and propose a charter describing its tasks and schedule of deliverables for approval by the participating SO's and AC's. Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall deliver its initial recommendation for community comment in time for discussion at the Brussels ICANN meeting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz April 1, 2010

April 1, 2010

Yes, the wording Rafik proposes is fine. But there is another request for a friendly ammendment, that the motion state that "the goal of not creating further delays to the new gTLD process." So the amended motion would read: Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs, and the goal of not creating further delays to the new gTLD process; Sorry for the late request. Wanted to get it on the list but we can discuss during the call. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, March 31, 2010 4:02 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, Please let us know when you have cleared it so that I know whether it can be considered as a friendly amendment now that Olga has also approved Rafik's wording. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:27 AM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING > GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > > > Thank you Rafik. That is acceptable to me and I will clear > that with our Councilors and the RrSG. > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING > GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > Date: Wed, March 31, 2010 10:12 am > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hello, > > After discussion with NCSG, we decided to accept the > amendment and would like to reword it:"keeping in mind the > GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD > applications and on-going services to new gTLDs" > > Regards > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2010/3/31 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > Rafik, Olga, > > I think it would clearly be useful for you to provide some > explanation as to why you don't consider Tim's amendment as friendly. > > There may be very good reasons for that, but by not > explaining them, it simply raises suspicions around this motion. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Le 31 mars 2010 à 15:47, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > > > > > That's just all the more reason to accept my amendment as > friendly. If > > it is not considered friendly then it's clear to me that Rafik and > > Olga have something different in mind. Regardless of the > Board motion > > mentioning it, this motion needs to be clear that it has > picked up on > > that fact and that the WG will proceed accordingly. If that is not > > clear, it is unlikely the RrSG will support it. > > > > Tim > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING > GROUP ON > > NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm > > To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the > proposed > > motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to > recover the costs > > of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs". > > Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again? > > > > Alan > > > > At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > >> Rafik, > >> > >> Then I'm confused because you said: > >> > >> "I think that there are misunderstandings about the > working group and > >> its relation with the new gTLD process too. > >> - the working group should work on finding approaches for > applicants > >> requiring assistance. it means that those applicants have > anyway to > >> follow the same requirements like any other applicants. the > >> assistance may be technical (as suggested by Andrei) > or/and financial > >> (to find structure/organizations to fund those projects, it is not > >> ICANN which will fund!)." > >> > >> All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make > your point - > >> "it is not ICANN which will fund!" Would you please > propose such an > >> amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to > >> support the motion. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Tim > >> > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC > WORKING GROUP ON > >> NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > >> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > >> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am > >> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. > >> > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >> > >> Rafik/Olga, > >> > >> Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? > >> > >> Chuck > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> > >> > >>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > >>> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM > >>> To: GNSO Council > >>> Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC > WORKING GROUP ON > >>> NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > >>> > >>> > >>> Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look for > >>> funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to possibly > >>> resolve this concern, I would like to make that evident in the > >>> motion and propose this friendly amendment: > >>> > >>> Add the following to the first Resolve: > >>> > >>> keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs > of new gTLD > >>> applications and on-going services to new gTLDs > >>> > >>> So the first Resolve would read: > >>> > >>> Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint > >>> SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by > developing > >>> a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD > applicants > >>> requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, > >>> keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs > of new gTLD > >>> applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; > >>> > >>> > >>> Tim > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -------- Original Message -------- > >>> Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING > GROUP ON NEW > >>> GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT > >>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > >>> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am > >>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO > >>> <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council > working group > >>> on new gTLD applicant support the motion document is attached. > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > >

1 0

MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Glen de Saint Géry April 1, 2010

April 1, 2010

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting a little later, please find the proposed amendments to the motion in bold font in this text version: MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT: Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Olga Cavalli amended by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying and about the material requirements for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs and material conditions might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing regions, from cultural/linguistic groups and from non-profit groups such as philanthropies, Whereas, on 13 March 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 20 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20) requesting that stakeholders work with their respective ACs and SOs to form a working group to provide a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to fulfill this Board request, and to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to such new GTLD applicants,*** o Tim Ruiz' s amendment: "keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs. o Rafik Dammak's rewording: "keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS; Resolved further, that Rafik Dammak shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint SO/AC working group; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Chair shall within 48 hours of this motion inform the Chairs of other SO's and the AC's of this action and encourage their participation; Resolved further, that ICANN Staff shall within seven calendar days of this motion identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed; Resolved further, that the staff support assigned to this working group shall within 48 hours after the support tools are arranged distribute an invitation for working group participants as widely as possible within the SO/AC community; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall initiate its activities within 28 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the participating SO's and AC's, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim co-chair with the liaison(s) from other SO's and AC's; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall as its first action items: i) elect a chair or co-chairs; ii) establish meeting times as needed; and iii) develop and propose a charter describing its tasks and schedule of deliverables for approval by the participating SO's and AC's. Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall deliver its initial recommendation for community comment in time for discussion at the Brussels ICANN meeting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0