May 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report attached for your review
by Liz Gasster 30 May '10

30 May '10

All, Attached please find a "draft" Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report for your review and discussion. This report includes input we received while soliciting the views of the SOs and ACs. We decided to leave the report as a draft to provide the opportunity for further input in Brussels. Dave Piscitello (and Steve Sheng remotely) will be facilitating a public consultation on the report, tentatively scheduled for Thursday morning at 9:30 Brussels local time. We will finalize the report shortly thereafter. Best regards, Liz

1 0

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 10 June 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 30 May '10

30 May '10

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed GNSO Council Agenda for 10 June 2010 also posted on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_10_june_2010 and will shortly be available on page: http://gnso.icann.org/ Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 10 June 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 20:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 13:00 PDT; 15:00 CDT; 16:00 EDT; 17:00 Buenos Aires; 17:00 Brazil; 21:00 Ireland; 22:00 CET; 00:00 Moscow; 01:00 Friday Pakistan; 04:00 Friday Hong Kong; 05:00 Friday Tokyo, 06:00 Friday 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: * 20 May 2010 meeting - Approved 7 June 2010. (insert URL) Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work (5 Minutes) 2.1 Refer to TIMELINE FOR FIRST WORK PRIORITIZATION EFFORT http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-proje… 2.2 Progress Report (Ken Bour) Item 3: GNSO Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Drafting Team (DT) Endorsement Process (20 minutes) 3.1 Refer to (to be inserted URL for proposed process) 3.2 Overview of GNSO AoC RT Endorsement Process (Bill Drake) 3.3 Questions/Comments? 3.4 Motion * Refer to https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions 10 june motions<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions> * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) Item 4: Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar names) (25 minutes) 4.1 General Discussion (continuation from 21 May meeting) 4.2 Motion * Refer to https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions 20 may motions<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions> * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion) Item 5: AGP Policy questions (20 minutes) 5.1 Refer to latest semi-annual update: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/contractual-compliance-report-24… 5.2 Brief overview of update (Craig Schwartz) 5.3 Questions/comments? 5.4 Discussion of questions raised by Craig Schwartz in the 21 April Council meeting (continued from 20 May) * 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? 5.5 Next steps? Item 6: Whois Studies (20 minutes) 6.1 Refer to: * Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… * RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm * ICANN's FY11 Draft Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2011 (Note: Public comment period is open until 25 June; the amount in the Draft Budget for Whois Studies is at least $ 400,000.) 6.2 Procedure for deciding which study(studies) to initiate * Brief overview of the study choices (Liz Gasster) * Discussion * Next steps? Item 7: GNSO Improvements OSC Recommendations from the CCT (15 minutes) 7.1 Refer to: * Final recommendations: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf * Public comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/ * Public comment summary & analysis: http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html 7.2 Brief overview of recommendations & comments (Julie Hedland) 7.3 Questions/Comments? 7.4 Motion * Refer to https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this motion) Item 8: Other Business (5 minutes) 8.1 Agendas for Brussels meetings Note: Questions or comments for the following should be made on the Council list * WG/WT/DT Status updates: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-10jun10-en.htm * Updated GNSO Project Status List: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 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) 15:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 00:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 06:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Please let me know if you have any questions. 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

IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report
by Marika Konings 29 May '10

29 May '10

Dear All, For your information, please find attached the IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report. In addition to an update to the GNSO Council on Saturday 19 June, the WG will be organizing an information and consultation session at the ICANN meeting in Brussels (details to be confirmed) following which a public comment forum will be opened on 5 July for a period of 20 days. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Registration Abuse Policies Final Report
by Marika Konings 29 May '10

29 May '10

Dear All, On behalf of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group, I hereby submit its Final Report for your consideration. With best regards, Marika

1 0

GNSO Council Draft Minutes 20 May 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 May '10

28 May '10

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 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# on Monday, 7 June 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motion and Document Deadline - Wednesday 2 June 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 May '10

28 May '10

Dear Councillors, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the 10 June 2010 GNSO Council meeting are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 2 June 2010. 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] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
by Stéphane Van Gelder 25 May '10

25 May '10

Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the dinners. Thanks Rita. Stéphane Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit : > Stephane and all - > > I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of the board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce and I are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions was substituted. Thanks > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> > To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > Cc: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 > Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major decision-making bodies. > > I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting the people from each body talking to each other. > > Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps make organisations work. > > Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often easier for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates into real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work sessions. > > As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended helped take away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council and working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board members, I found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten that in a more formal setting. > > I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil the internal workings of the organisation. > > Stéphane > > Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit : > >> >> Hello All, >> >> >> >>>> I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is excellent. >> To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for >> interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them >> disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel they >> should go. >> >> >> Well here are some issues that get raised: >> >> - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so >> some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate >> attention >> >> - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion >> about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that >> the Board will be making a decision on that week? >> >> - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be >> endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus >> support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy >> matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO - the >> GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take >> sides. >> >> There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not >> aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials >> provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the >> particular issue. >> >> >> Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g A >> period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in >> advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the >> documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is perhaps >> optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding of >> the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were doing >> the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy >> discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some >> barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to >> better results the following day. >> >> Regards, >> Bruce Tonkin >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > **************************************************** > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > **************************************************** > **************************************************** > > This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof. > > Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request. > **************************************************** > ==============================================================================

7 7

Public Comment: April 2010 DNS-CERT Operational Requirements & Collaboration Analysis
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 May '10

25 May '10

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24may10-en.htm Public Comment: April 2010 DNS-CERT Operational Requirements & Collaboration Analysis 24 May 2010 ICANN is today opening a public comment period on the April 2010 DNS-CERT Operational Requirements and Collaboration Analysis Workshop Report<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/dns-cert-collaboration-analysis-24may10-…> (with Minority Statement). In advance of the ICANN Brussels meeting, ICANN is seeking comments on the potential requirements identified in the workshop report, DNS Security response gaps. In addition, ICANN is publishing the Summary & Analysis of Comments on the Security Strategic Initiatives and Global DNS-CERT Business Case papers<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/summary-analysis-strategic-ssr-initi…>, and the DNS-CERT Consultation record<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/dns-cert-consultation-record-24may10-en.…>. The consultation record is included for transparency on the formation of the DNS-CERT concept and consultations that have occurred in parallel with the public comment period on the Security Strategic Initiatives papers. The DNS-CERT Operational Requirements and Collaboration Analysis Workshop report was prepared by Jose Nazario, Arbor Networks, Roy Arends, Nominet, and Chris Morrow, Google, and is the output from a tabletop workshop conducted 6-7 April 2010 in Washington DC. Participants identified several requirements for responding to Internet and DNS security events, many of which are under-met or ignored by existing DNS security capabilities. They are: * A trusted communications channel, or multiple channels, for use during event response that is usable by the appropriate parties. * Standing incident coordination and response functions, which enable consistent and professional incident handling efforts. * Incident status tracking through to completion, with communication to the necessary parties. * Trusted guidance on issues with knowledge and experience with the various and varied areas of Internet and DNS security. Respect of these voices by the areas of the Internet and DNS communities with which they speak is important. * A trust broker / introduction service across traditional communities boundaries, recognizing that the community identifying threats to Internet and DNS operations is often far-flung and sometimes outside the knowledge of the Internet and DNS operator and vendor communities. * Analysis capabilities, including data such as DNS traffic, software vulnerabilities and attack traffic, to validate incidents and identify next steps as quickly as possible. * Institutional memory in the form of reports, recommendations, and best practices, which can inform the various Internet and DNS security communities, support future successful incident responses, and help evolve incident response capabilities. * Outreach and education functions to share best practices for securing Internet and DNS operations, secure registration functions, implementing DNSSEC, and other key DNS and security factors. * The ability to act quickly, and to be prepared to act with necessary resources in response to threats to the DNS of a global nature in a timely and sustained manner. * A sensitivity to the complexity of the international nature of the DNS, understanding the capabilities and limitations of the global DNS community. Workshop participants noted many of these functions are addressed by various groups, either standing or ad-hoc. Some participants expressed concern that only a few of the existing organizations are DNS-specific. The report includes a Minority Statement<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/dns-cert-collaboration-analysis-minority…> from Kathy Kleiman, Public Interest Registry, and Greg Aaron, Afilias. Comments on the Operational Requirements and Collaboration Analysis Report submitted to dns-collab-analysis(a)icann.org<mailto:dns-collab-analysis@icann.org> will be considered until 2 Jul 2010 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/dns-collab-analysis/.<http://forum.icann.org/lists/dns-collab-analysis/> A consultation session will be held at the ICANN meeting in Brussels on the Security Strategic Initiatives (DNS-CERT and system-wide DNS Risk Assessment and exercises), with a date and time soon to be included in the Brussels meeting schedule. 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] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au 22 May '10

22 May '10

Could we just identify a topic or two each and canvass among our SGs? Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 01:00:27 To: Adrian Kinderis<adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>; Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO Council<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels Please ignore my earlier question about what we would survey Adrian. The following answers my question. Any volunteers to take a first crack at a survey that we can discuss on the list? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:38 AM > To: Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > Thanks Bruce. This is helpful. > > I like to see a way that we can move away from anecdotal opinions > towards firm requests from the Board members as to their want/ need to > meet with the GNSO. Is there a way that we could actually survey them > with a list of options and ensure we get the right mix of engagement? > > There is a danger that we are catering for the vocal majority. > > Thanks. > > > Adrian Kinderis > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 11:12 PM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > Hello All, > > > > >> I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is excellent. > To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for > interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them > disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel they > should go. > > > Well here are some issues that get raised: > > - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so > some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate > attention > > - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion > about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that > the Board will be making a decision on that week? > > - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be > endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus > support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy > matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO - > the > GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take > sides. > > There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not > aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials > provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the > particular issue. > > > Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g A > period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in > advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the > documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is > perhaps > optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding > of > the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were > doing > the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy > discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some > barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to > better results the following day. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > >

2 1

ICANN is Seeking Independent Researchers to Respond to Request for Proposal on WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study
by Glen de Saint Géry 22 May '10

22 May '10

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm ICANN is Seeking Independent Researchers to Respond to Request for Proposal on WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study 18 May 2010 The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now exploring several extensive studies of WHOIS and has asked ICANN to estimate the cost and feasibility of conducting several studies proposed by members of the ICANN community and ICANN's Government Advisory Committee. This particular area of study focuses on the extent to which domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity. ICANN is seeking to engage independent research organizations to undertake this study. The WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study Cover Letter [PDF, 99 KB] illustrates the scope of work and the criteria for selection. This Cover Letter should be read in conjunction with the Terms of Reference for the WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Studies RFP [PDF, 321 KB]. Read together, these two documents provide the materials necessary to respond to this Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Studies. More information about WHOIS may be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ By 20 July 2010, interested applicants should submit proposals by email to rfpwhois(a)icann.org to the attention of Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Department. A confirmation email will be sent for each proposal received.

1 0