May 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth Nov. 2, 2010

Nov. 2, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter of the proposed new City Top-Level Domain Constituency submitted by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG. This significant step represents the fourth formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the new GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition which will extend into July. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the Board's review. I have shared a copy of the attached documents with the Board and will be sending copies to the GNSO Constituencies leaders list as well. The document is now also posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.@icann.org Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 1

GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
by Ken Bour June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: In accordance with the Work Prioritization timeline approved by the Council on 21 April 2010, four major steps were identified as follows: Step Dates Activity Status Step 1 30 April - 20 May Staff recommend and Council approve a set of Eligible Projects for the 1st Work Prioritization effort Completed Step 2 21 May - 7 June Individual Councilor ratings completed and delivered to Staff for commonality analysis (18 days) In Progress Step 3 19 June (Brussels) Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings Scheduled Step 4 23 June (Brussels) Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org Scheduled The purpose of this email is to formally launch Step 2, which is to solicit from each GNSO Council member and participating Liaison individual Value ratings for each of the Eligible Projects approved in Step 1. The definition of Value, as provided in the proposed Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) procedures (Chapter 6 and ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ), is quoted below: "Value . this factor relates to perceptions of overall value, benefit, importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANN's stakeholders and the global Internet community. Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited to: new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user experience. " In this task, each Councilor is asked to rate the above Value component for each of the 15 Eligible Projects (see attached spreadsheet) using the following 7-point scale. [Note: the scale is also duplicated in the attachment for ease of reference]. Scale Interpretation 1 Far Below 2 Moderately Below 3 Slightly Below 4 Average 5 Slightly Above 6 Moderately Above 7 Far Above Scale Guideline: As provided in the proposed WPM-DT procedures (ANNEX, Section 2.2 <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ), the following guidelines are intended to assist Council members in developing Value ratings. "Thinking about all Eligible Projects taken together, which one (or more) represents your best perception of AVERAGE in terms of Value as defined in Section 6.3.2. For example, suppose that you happen to think that Project "X" is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value compared to all the others. Once you have "anchored" your perceptual scale in this way, then it is a matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far Below, Moderately Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above, or Far Above that "average" project in terms of this factor. If you find it challenging to decide on an AVERAGE project, consider anchoring at either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project you think is FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value. In this rating process, there are no absolute or independent scale referents -- you are being asked to assess projects RELATIVE to each other." Note: Councilors are encouraged to consult with their organizations to ensure that the ratings reflect the priorities of their groups as much as possible. Instructions: Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template) that you will use to rate each Eligible Project according to your perception of relative Value. Directions are contained inside the template. Please enter your Name in the space provided and the Date you complete the form. Please do not forget to <Save As> the completed form to another name as explained and illustrated inside the spreadsheet. ***Please note that all unshaded cells are protected (i.e. locked) against accidental mistyping; it is also important that the project and value rating sequence be maintained to facilitate data aggregation*** Expected Output: The outcome of this activity, once Staff receives and processes all of your individual ratings, will be an initial statistical assessment of Councilor agreement on the Value ratings. The data will be used as input to the Step 3 group discussion that is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 19 June. If you have questions about any of this material, please feel free to email or call me. I will provide periodic updates to the Council (e.g. 28 May and 4 June) outlining the progress of this activity. Good luck with your ratings! Ken Bour Policy Staff Consultant Email: ken.bour(a)verizon.net Office: 703-430-4059 (USA-Virginia EST)

4 5

Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels
by Gomes, Chuck June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

<<Joint GNSO Meeting Agenda Topics for Brussels.docx>> <<Survey for Board meeting with GNSO in Brussels.docx>> The first attachment above is a summary I created of the suggested topics, names of Councilors who expressed support or opposition for them and excerpts of Councilor comments for the three Council joint meetings scheduled for Brussels. I tried to be thorough and complete in creating this but wouldn't be surprised if I missed some or incorrectly showed support. Please communicate any errors you find. My next step recommendations for each meeting are as follows. GAC/GNSO meeting Recognizing that it will be very unlikely that we can cover all three topics in one hour, I suggest that I send a message to Janis asking him to prioritize the following three topics from his point of view: * DAG 4, including morality and public order * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews * Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Once we get a response from Janis, we solicit Council volunteers to prepare 1-2 minute statements on one or more of the topics that would be communicated as individual or SG/Constituency statements in the meeting. Statements may include questions for the GAC. Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting We develop a survey that Bruce Tonkin may use to solicit individual Board preferences regarding topics they would like to discuss with Councilors in Brussels, noting 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices. I took a first stab at a survey that is contained in the second attachment to this message. Once we get the feedback from Bruce, we will try to assign seating by topic(s) at each table. ccNSO/GNSO meeting I will send a message to Chris Disspain saying that the GNSO Council supports the topic of the DNS-CERT be the main topic of discussion in the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in Brussels with the understanding that the ccNSO may add other topics if desired and that I also proposed a small list of questions in that regard to facilitate discussion. For starters, I suggest the following questions: 1. What are the biggest concerns of ICANN DNS-CERT activities to date? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants 2. How could the ICANN-DNS CERT activities be improved going forward? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants 3. In what ways could the ccNSO and GNSO work together in this area? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants Please feel free to provide feedback on any of the above not later than one week from today, Thursday, 3 June. Using that feedback I will take the next steps as indicated above or as modified per the feedback received. Thanks, Chuck

2 1

VI WG status report to GNSO Council
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

Councillors, please find below my status report for the VI WG. Vertical Integration Policy Development Process (VI PDP) - Chairs Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor - Council Liaison - Stephane van Gelder - May 10, 2010 The working group has been receiving and examining a number of proposals submitted by members suggesting various implementation guidelines for VI or separation. A plan for delivering a final proposal has been drafted, including dates up to and beyond the Brussels meeting. The WG had a session with economists Salop and Wright to delve further into the rationale for or against VI. A comparison matrix of proposals has been drafted and is being used by the WG to attempt to coalesce around a single proposal, which would be the WG's final proposal. The WG will review both public comments and constituency/SG comments in order to incorporate them in its final proposal. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder

1 1

Rod on Internet governance
by William Drake June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

Hi, This is relevant to the thread about whether to discuss ICANN's strategic response to global Internet governance debates at the Council-Board dinner. In light of all that that has gone on over the past few years and the continuing discontent of a majority of governments with ICANN's constitutional structure, is it enough to simply argue that any departure from the status quo would make ICANN less "nimble"? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/icann-head-warns-against-put…

3 3

DAG v4
by Adrian Kinderis May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

Chuck, Any idea when we can expect this? Adrian Kinderis

2 1

Public Comment: Initial Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
by Glen de Saint Géry May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28may10-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment: Initial Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement 28 May 2010 The Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team is seeking comments on its Initial Report on Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/report-raa-improvements-proposal-28may10-e…> [PDF, 3.24 MB]. This Initial Report describes the recommendations from the Joint GNSO-ALAC RAA Drafting Team for producing a Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter, and for identifying topics for possible additional future amendments to the RAA. The public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#raa-imp…> period ends on 9 July 2010. Background: In March 2007, Dr. Paul Twomey called for a comprehensive review of the RAA and the accreditation process. The results of that review ultimately produced a new form of RAA (2009 RAA) which was approved by the GNSO Council and the At-Large Advisory Committee, and adopted by the ICANN Board on 21 May 2009. In approving the 2009 RAA, the GNSO Council conditioned its recommendation on the beginning of work on further RAA amendments. The GNSO Council formed a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community (known as the RAA Drafting Team) to conduct further work related to proposals for improvements to the RAA. Various stakeholders submitted proposals for amendment topics that were carefully evaluated by the RAA Drafting Team, including, representatives of the law enforcement community, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and ICANN Staff. The Initial Report to the GNSO Council describes the recommendations on (i) the proposed form of a Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter, and (ii) potential topics for additional amendments to the RAA, as well as a proposal for next steps for the GNSO Council to consider in determining whether to recommend a new form RAA to be adopted by the ICANN Board. This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any of the proposals for improvements to the RAA described in the Initial Report. The Initial Report will be posted for a public comment period that closes on 9 July 2010. Comments can be sent to raa-improvements2010(a)icann.org<mailto:raa-improvements2010@icann.org> and reviewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-improvements2010/. The community will have additional opportunity to discuss certain proposals from the law enforcement community for amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement in an open forum discussion at the Brussels Meeting. For additional information: * To review the current versions of the RAA, please see: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/agreements.html * To understand the process followed in developing the 2009 RAA, please review: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa/ * To review the GNSO resolution related to the RAA, please see: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903 * To learn more about the RAA, please refer to the Non-Lawyers Guide to the RAA, posted at: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/non-lawyers-guide-to-ra-agreement-15feb1… Staff responsible: Margie Milam

1 0

Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
by Gomes, Chuck May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

It is time for us to start thinking about discussion topics for our three regular joint meetings in Brussels: 1) GAC/GNSO meeting; 2) Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting; and 3) ccNSO/GNSO meeting. To get discussion going, I listed some ideas below. GAC/GNSO meeting Janis suggested the following with my comments in parentheses: * DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively discussion) * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews * RAA (I believe that this is one where there is common interest in discussing) * IDN ccPDP (I don't think this is very useful from a GNSO point of view, but maybe I am missing something) Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting * There are rumblings that there are some on the Board who think this meeting has outlived its usefulness; in light of that, it might be useful to discuss the value or lack of value from both the GNSO and Board/Staff perspective. ccNSO/GNSO meeting * DNS-CERT Please comment on the above and feel free to suggest new topics. I promised Janis and Chris I would get back to them. Thanks, Chuck

6 14

PDP-WT Initial Report
by Marika Konings May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

Dear All, For your information, please find attached the Initial Report of the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT). This document represents some of the initial thinking and recommendations concerning the development of, and transition to, a new GNSO policy development process. A 45-day public comment period will be opened later today. In addition, the PDP-WT will be organizing a public information and consultation session at the ICANN meeting in Brussels (details to be confirmed). With best regards, Marika

1 0

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP Initial Report
by Marika Konings May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

Dear All, For your information, please find attached the Post-Expiration Domain name Recovery PDP Initial Report. In addition to an update to the GNSO Council on Saturday 19 June, the PEDNR WG will be organizing an information and consultation session at the ICANN meeting in Brussels (details to be confirmed). A public comment forum will be opened following the meeting in Brussels. With best regards, Marika

1 0