June 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Changes
by Rosette, Kristina June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

Proposed changes. 1. Add after the first sentence in point 4: If the list meets the above-mentioned diversity objectives, the Council will consider the list of endorsements to be deemed final forwarded to ICANN. 2. Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read: If, however, . . . ... 3. Change third bullet of #2 to read: Each stakeholder group is encouraged to (a) identify in its internal deliberations and (b) notify Council of one or two additional candidates whom it could support, if available, in the event that the diversity procedure outlined in item 4 below is utilized. 4. Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read: If, however, the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates, from among those identified by the stakeholder groups under item 2, who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. If consideration of these additional stakeholder group-identified candidates does not meet the diversity objectives, the Council may refer to the GNSO applicant pool to identify these additional candidates. K

6 18

FW: Volunteer to join the AoC WHOIS Policy team
by Glen de Saint Géry June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

Forwarded From: Alice Jansen -----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 12:04 AM To: rtcandidatures(a)icann.org Subject: Volunteer to join the AoC WHOIS Policy team Good afternoon: I would like to volunteer to participate on the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) WHOIS Policies Review Team. Attached, please find my application materials, including a CV, Letter of Motivation, and the statement of additional information required by the GNSO. Thank you, J. --------------- James Bladel GoDaddy.com, Inc.

1 0

ICANN Board meeting agenda for 25 June 2010
by Bruce Tonkin June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-25jun10-en.htm Board Meeting - Agenda 25 June 2010 1.Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Minutes of 22 April 2010 Board Meeting b. Thank You's c. Extension of Time for GNSO Constituencies to Review Charters d. From the Board Governance Committee - Slating of Board Committees e. IDN Delegation Approvals Main Agenda: 2. Further Review of ICM's Request for XXX Sponsored Top Level Domain 3. From the Board Governance & Compensation Committees - Consideration of Posting of Bylaw Changes relating to Chair Remuneration for Public Comment 4. From the Finance Committee a. Adoption of FY11 Budget b. New gTLD Budget for discussion 5. New gTLDs Update Arising from Discussions in Brussels 6. Issues Arising from the Brussels Meeting 7. Any Other Business

1 0

Prioritization Process - Motion
by Olga Cavalli June 14, 2010

June 14, 2010

Hi, I am sending the folowing motion for your consideration. Best regards Olga * * *GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Re: Work Prioritization)* WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution and timeline <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions>to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>) recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT); WHEREAS, the adopted timeline outlined four major process steps the first three of which have been completed as follows: 1) Step 1: ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf> (v1.0), including a Cover Letter<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-proje…>, on 30 April 2010 [Council approved on 20 May 2010<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> ] 2) Step 2: Eighteen Councilors and one Liaison (19 total) submitted individual Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects (approved in Step 1) on or before 9 June (deadline extended from 7 June), which were then successfully processed and aggregated by Staff for input to Step 3; 3) Step 3: The GNSO Council held a Work Prioritization group discussion session on 19 June 2010 in Brussels and successfully finalized a set of Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Value Ratings finalized in its group discussion session held on 19 June 2010 and directs Staff to publish those Value Ratings on the GNSO website according to Step 4 of the adopted timeline.

3 3

ccNSO Update - new ccNSO member 107
by Olga Cavalli June 14, 2010

June 14, 2010

Hi, Somalia has become the 107th member of the ccNSO. Regards Olga

1 0

Proposed GNSO Public Council Meeting Agenda - Brussels - 23 June 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry June 14, 2010

June 14, 2010

Dear Councillors, Attached, and in text below, please find the Proposed GNSO Public Council Meeting Agenda - Brussels - 23 June 2010 An abbreviated agenda is posted on the ICANN Brussels Schedule: http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12487 The agenda is published on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_23_june_2010 and the GNSO website at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-23jun10-en.htm Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Proposed GNSO Public Council Meeting Agenda - Brussels - Wednesday 23 June 2010 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_23_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 08:00 Local time in Brussels - 06:00 UTC. See the table below and http://www.timeanddate.com for other times: Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who are not able to attend the meeting in Brussels. 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'. Note: i) Possible changes may be made to this agenda and more detail will be added prior to 23 June; ii) This meeting will be open to the public and opportunities for audience comments and questions will be provided. 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: * 10 June Meeting - Scheduled for approval on 25 June 2010 (Insert URL) Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work (30 Minutes) 2.1 Report of 19 June Prioritization Exercise (Ken Bour) 2.2 Discussion (Council & Audience) 2.3 Approval of final ratings * Motion to approve & publish ratings: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions * Discussion (Council) * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) 2.4 Evaluation of the prioritization process * Lessons learned? * Areas for improvement? * Discussion (Council & Audience) * Next Steps? Item 3: GNSO Affirmation of Commitments Drafting Team (AoC DT )Endorsement Process (30 minutes) 3.1 Summary of the Endorsement Process (Bill Drake) 3.2 Motion (insert URL) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions * Original motion made for 10 June meeting https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions * Proposed amendments 3.3 Discussion (Council & Audience) 3.4 Vote (on amendments if necessary & final motion) (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) 3.5 Next steps regarding the AoC Review Teams (Olof Nordling) 3.6 Discussion (Council & Audience) Item 4: Whois Studies (45 minutes) 4.1 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. * Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf 4.2 Procedure for deciding which study(studies) to initiate * Brief overview of the study choices (Liz Gasster) * Discussion * Next steps? 4.3 Discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies (Council & Audience) 4.4 Next steps? Item 5: GNSO Improvements (45 Minutes) 5.1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) 5.1.1 Working Group Work Team Recommendations * Refer to final report submitted to the PPSC: http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/working-group-guidelines-31may10-en.pdf * Report from the PPSC (Jeff Neuman or Marika Konings) * Next step: PPSC Action 5.1.2 Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team * Note there will be a community session this afternoon on the Initial Report of the PDP Work Team * Brief status report & next steps (Jeff Neuman or Marika Konings) 5.2 Operations Steering Committee (OSC) 5.2.1 OSC Recommendations from the Communications & Coordination Work Team * Refer to: Final recommendations: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf * Refer to Public comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/ * Refer to public comment summary & analysis: http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html * Brief overview of recommendations & comments (Ken Bour) * Questions/Comments? * Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions * Discussion (Council & Audience) 5.2.2 OSC Recommendations from the GCOT & the CSG WTs * Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions 5.3 Status Reports for Remaining GNSO Improvements Projects * GNSO Council Operations (GCOT) Recommendations * GNSO Constituency & Stakeholder Group (CSG) Recommendations 5.4 Implementation Status Reports for Approved GNSO Improvement Recommendations * Council Operations Work Team (Julie Hedlund) * Constituency & Stakeholder Group Work Team (Julie Hedlund) 5.5 Discussion (Council & Audience) Item 6 Reports from Working Groups (30 Minutes) Note: Audience comments & questions will be deferred until after all reports are given. 6.1 Vertical Integration PDP Working Group * Progress report (Roberto Gaetano &/or Mikey O'Connor or Margie Milam) * Summary of discussion from the VI WG session on Saturday (Margie Milam) * Council questions? * Next steps? 6.2 The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group * Refer to Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf * Summary of discussion from the RAP WG session on Sunday (Marika Konings) * Council questions * Next steps? 6.3 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B PDP WG * Refer to Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf * Council questions * Next Steps? 6.4 Post Expiration Domain Name Renewal (PEDNR) PDP WG * Refer to Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pednr-initial-report-31may10-en.pdf * Council questions * Next Steps? 6.5 Council and Audience discussion Item 7: Other Business (20 minutes) 7.1 Joint Community DNS-CERT WG * Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html * Discussion (Council & Audience) * GNSO support? * Volunteers for charter drafting team (DT)? o Volunteers to date: * Terry Davis (NCA) * Rafik Dammak (NCSG) * Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias) * Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR) * Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign) * Mike Rodenbaugh (CSG, CBUC) * Zahid Jamil (CSG, CBUC) o Any additional volunteers? Item 8: Open Microphone (30 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm> 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: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; b. 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; c. 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"); d. 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; e. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and f. 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)<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/gnso-operating-procedures-clean-12nov09-en.p…> Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: a. Initiate a policy development process; b. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; c. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; d. 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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 06:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 23:00 Tuesday 22 June Cedar Rapids, USA (CST) UTC-6+0DST 01:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 02:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 03:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-2+1DST 03:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 07:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 08:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 08:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 08:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 10:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 11:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 14:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 15:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com

1 0

AoC Accountability and Transparency Review: Independent Expert - Request for Proposals
by Glen de Saint Géry June 13, 2010

June 13, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-02jun10-en.htm AoC Accountability and Transparency Review: Independent Expert - Request for Proposals Updated 12 June 2010 11 June 2010 2 June 2010 Deadline extended to: 12 June 2010 - 23.59 UTC In the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest and are accountable to all stakeholders. To this end, the AoC prescribes the setting-up of a Review Team as to evaluate ICANN's Accountability and Transparency - this led to the creation of the first ATRT in March 2010. In its examination of ICANN's activities, the first ATRT recently published Questions to the Community for Public Comment<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#atrt>. As part of its review effort, the AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT)<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/activities-1-en.htm> now issues a Request for Proposals (RfP)<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/rpf-atrt-02jun10-en.pdf> [PDF, 49 KB] in order to appoint an independent expert. The purpose of this assignment is to perform a n assessment of ICANN decision-making to identify whether ICANN's processes and procedures are designed and executed in a manner that ensures its AoC commitments. Interested parties are invited to provide relevant background material, written methodology for execution of this task, views on the tentative timeline enclosed in the RfP, a proposed budget, resumes, references and financial information by June 12, 2010 - 23.59 UTC to Alice E. Jansen, ICANN, Assistant, Organizational Reviews at alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>. Interested parties, please be advised that the RT has addressed a set of questions received in response to the RfP: RfP Questions and Answers<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/rfp-q-and-a-11jun10-en.pdf> [PDF, 64 KB]. Based on review of the June 12, 2010 submissions, parties may be invited to present their proposals to perform this study to the ATRT during its meeting on June 18-19, 2010 in Brussels, Belgium. The ATRT intends to notify candidates on Monday, 14 June 2010. Candidates selected to make presentations to the ATRT will be notified of the date and time of their presentation and will present on one of the two dates indicated. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Changes to String Similarity Review Proposed by GNSO Council - Public Comments Requested
by Glen de Saint Géry June 13, 2010

June 13, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm Draft Changes to String Similarity Review Proposed by GNSO Council - Public Comments Requested 11 June 2010 On 10 June, the GNSO Council passed a resolution requesting that a 21-day public comment period http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#string-… be opened regarding a proposal to send the following letter be sent to Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, Services, copy to the ICANN Board, recommending that the Draft Applicant Guidebook version IV section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". The GNSO Council further recommends that a section be added on "String Similarity - Extended Review" that parallels other such sections in Module 2. The text of the GNSO Council resolution and draft letter may be found here http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/council-resolution-proposed-letter-dag… [PDF, 12 KB]. Background Information The GNSO Council is concerned that the Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse. The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 of the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet. More recently, the IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string. The Council proposes that a letter be sent recommending changes to the Draft Applicant Guidebook to address this concern. Further Information Full information about the new gTLD program may be found at: www.icann.org. Comments are due by 2 July 2010. Staff Responsible: Liz Gasster Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New gTLD Geographical Names
by Gomes, Chuck June 13, 2010

June 13, 2010

Kurt, I am writing this message in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO Council but want to say up front that it has not been approved by the Council. As you can see I have cc'd the Council. As you know, as a part of the New gTLD PDP, the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group (RN-WG) spent considerable time considering the issues of reserved names in the introduction of new gTLDs and the RN-WG recommendations were approved by a super-majority of the GNSO Council as a part of the overall new gTLD report that the Board later approved. In the long new gTLD implementation process that has followed many changes have been proposed to those recommendations; in particular, quite a few significant changes were added in Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 4. You are aware that significant effort went into the GNSO reserved names recommendations; a lot of time and effort was devoted to debate issues of concern for multiple interest groups including those outside the GNSO such as the GAC and the ccNSO, and steps were taken to address those. Since that time, there has been a steady chipping away of the GNSO recommendations, particularly with regard to geographical names. The purpose of this message is not to suggest that the changes are not worth considering, but rather to point out that it is critical that the GNSO be involved in the process of evaluating those proposed changes. Geographical gTLD names may have an impact on ccTLD operators and on governments, so the ccNSO and the GAC should certainly contribute to the process. At the same time, there appears to recently be a trend toward deferring any issues with regard to geographical gTLD names primarily to the ccNSO and the GAC. The RN-WG believed that there is reasonable justification for accommodating some of the geographical name concerns of ccTLDs and governments in the introduction of new gTLDs as can be seen in the recommendations that were made (i.e., reserving 2-character LDH gTLDs, giving governments the standing to file disputes, etc.). The RN-WG also recognized that there are competitive issues between ccTLDs and gTLDs and that there may be cases where Internet users needs might be better met by geographical gTLD than a geographical ccTLD. My point is this: It is not sufficient to refer geographical gTLD name issues just to the ccNSO and the GAC. They can certainly be a part of the ccNSO IDN PDP, and be a part of GAC discussions, but not at the exclusion of the GNSO. Chuck Gomes

2 2

RE: [council] Changes
by Tim Ruiz June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010

1 0

FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT
by Gomes, Chuck June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010

I forwarded the following message to the Council the yesterday and added the topic to our agenda for our meeting under Other Business. Unfortunately, as we ran out of time, I failed to cover it. My intent was to simply ask if anyone objected to considering the formation of a WG as described by Chris and if not, to request volunteers to start working on a possible charter with volunteers from the ccNSO. So I will ask those questions now: 1. Does anyone object to considering the formation of such a WG? Note that we would not make an official decision to support such a WG until after we see a draft charter. If anyone objects, please communicate your objection not later than next Wednesday, 16 June. 2. Assuming there is no opposition, who would like to volunteer for the charter drafting team? Note that this is not a request for volunteers for what might eventually be a WG, but only for a charter DT. Regarding question 2, there have already been some volunteers in response to my message yesterday: * Terry Davis (NCA) * Rafik Damik (NCSG) * Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias) * Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR) * Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign). If anyone else wants to volunteer, please communicate your interest on this list not later than next Wednesday, 16 June. We will then communicate the names and contact information to the ccNSO. Thanks, Chuck From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT Chuck, In our conversation last week we discussed the possibility of the gNSO and ccNSO (along with other relevant ACs and independent experts) setting up the working group contemplated in the joint Chair's letter to ICANN of 25 March 2010 as soon as possible. I put this proposal to the ccNSO council on our call of 8 June and confirm that the council has agreed that in the event of the proposal also being agreed by the gNSO council, a small joint drafting team should work before Brussels to draft the charter for the establishment of a Working Group comprising representatives of ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee, Root Server System Advisory Committee, GAC, ALAC, CERT operators and ccTLD and gTLD managers to draw upon their collective expertise and to solicit their input on: * the broad concept of a DNS-CERT; * the current work being undertaken to mitigate DNS-related threats; * the actual level, frequency and severity of these threats; * the gaps (if any) in the current security response to DNS issues; * whether or not a DNS-CERT is a proposal they support; and * if so, the logistics of the proposal. The goal would be to have the charter approved by the ccNSO and gNSO in Brussels if possible so that we can announce the formation of the working group. I'm guessing that formally the working group will need to be a joint gNSO ccNSO group (as the 2 relevant supporting organisations that can actually make policy) with the charter mandating the involvement of the relevant ACs and outside experts. In the event that the gNSO council does approve the proposal then the action items will be a) to call for some volunteers to do the drafting along with Bart Boswinkel as ccNSO staff and an equivalent gNSO person and b) to approach the other ACs to inform them that this is occurring. I understand your council meets on 10 June 2010 and look forward to hearing from you regarding your discussions. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: 1300 732 929 <tel:1300%20732%20929> | F: 03 8341 4112 <tel:03%208341%204112> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W:www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA - The Australian Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5183 (20100608) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

4 5

FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
by Gomes, Chuck June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010

I sent this message to Janis regarding the composition of the AoC RTs. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:00 AM To: Janis Karklins; soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Janis, After fairly extensive discussion on the GNSO Council list and additional discussion in our Council meeting yesterday, the GNSO feels very strongly that it is important to have four representatives on each of the RTs. I have included a sampling of some of the comments and rationale provided by various Councilors below. Note that most of these comments were reinforced by multiple Councilors and that there was overall agreement in the Council meeting for the position. Chuck General Comments * I'm not sure that an additional 2 GNSO reps will be detrimental to efficiency, and I should think it would actually add to the credibility of the process - which leaves "budgetary limitations" as the remaining (relatively unconvincing) reason. * It seems to me that the ramifications of the selectors rejecting GNSO input as to participant number are potentially significant. In particular, the irony of doing so while the accountability and transparency review is underway is pretty amazing. I think that would play pretty well (against ICANN, that is) in a number of important fora. * It'd be a lot easier if they'd just default to four across the board in order to ensure community representation and diverse skill sets at the table, rather than turning RT size into a needless source of angst. * It is perfectly reasonable to allow one seat each to the SSAC, GAC, and ASO. But I think it's totally implausible to assume a well represented RT with only two for the GNSO and one each for the ccNSO and the ALAC. I believe we make a very strong statement insisting that each of those are doubled - four for the GNSO (one for each SG, no less), two each for the ccNSO and the ALAC due to the size of their memberships. That would make the RT 14 members, and that is certainly workable and more realistic. SSR RT * All three (SSR) are already huge issues and will directly affect all the rollout and use of TLD's, IDN_TLDs, and ccTLDs and some of the issues that could be coming would include: - Punycode storage of IDN names - Neither any human nor most existing security mechanisms (anti-virus, firewalls, etc) can read it directly. It is the main reason you need "standard script" usage. - DNSSec - Can it and should it be pushed to all TLDs? (After a demo of DNS hacks a couple weeks back, I'm not sure I will ever trust a wireless hotspot fully again.) - DNSSec - Credentials - Key distribution chains and processes, rollover mechanisms, and there will likely be some of revocation process needed for bad behavior. - DNSSec - Operational issues yet to be determined too. DNSSec generates a 30x increase in response traffic for instance plus signature processing overhead. - Network management systems likewise will likely have initial issues with IDNs too. - Increased discussions of "network cyber identity requirements" and how these might work in an IDN environment. - Routing reliability as IPv6 vastly increases the route table sizes - IPv6 reachability and initial usage rollouts. (Outside of Microsoft, I could not say that anyone on the globe has a large scale IPv6 infrastructure working yet.) - New "whois" issues that could be created by fact that more, maybe most, IPv6 addresses will be indirectly assigned through an ISP to the end user or organization rather than directly assigned via IANA and the RIRs. * From an operational point of view, with implementation of TLDs, ccTLDs, IDN_TLDs, DNSSec, and IPv6 plus the issues with route stability and huge growth in cybercrime; one could reasonably expect that many unseen/unknown operational issues will affect GNSO plans and policies. (and certainly keep the SSR busy!) * The economies and critical infrastructure (communications, power, financial, etc) of at least 50 nations around the globe are completely tied to the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet so SSR issues are considered very carefully by most governments. * The Commercial SG provides combined expertise in technical, operational and legal respect of security aspects of the DNS system. Whois RT * Whereas Internet users across the whole ICANN community are impacted by Whois policy, I don't think there is any doubt that GNSO constituents are impacted the most. It is gTLD registrants whose data is displayed and used. It is gTLD contracted parties who are required to implement Whois and who best understand the customer service and operational issues related to Whois offerings. It is commercial gTLD registrants whose businesses are affected when IP rights are violated. It is noncommercial users who have most often pointed out the need for privacy of Whois information and noncommercial organizations that are impacted in similar ways as commercial businesses. * In addition, because of the GNSO's long and belabored Whois policy development history and varied Whois operational offerings, the GNSO has the best source of Whois experts from various points of view. There is also good evidence that each SG provides a unique area of expertise and represents different points of view with regard to Whois policy. * Whois is one of the few areas where people who are generally like-minded can have VERY different positions. * There really has to be four for WHOIS, the perspectives of the SGs are just too variable for any two to represent the others, and the whole process could become a focal point of controversy. * I strongly oppose accepting only two seats on the Whois. New gTLDs RT * Similar arguments could be made for this future RT. From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Dear colleagues On behalf of Selectors I would like to propose that the size and composition of the two next review teams would be as follows: Security WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent expert 1-2 2 (law enforcement/privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13-14 10 I understand that your initial suggestions/requests were not fully accommodated, but for the sake of efficiency, credibility of the process, budgetary limitations Selectors have developed this proposal. If we would take into account all wishes, the RT size would be over 20 which in Selectors' view is not credible option. I hope that proposal will be equally unacceptable for everybody. I would appreciate your comments or expression of non-objection in coming week. Only after assessment of the violence of your opposition the Selectors will make their proposal (in present form or modified) public. Best regards JK

2 2

ccNSO - Update New councillor
by Olga Cavalli June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010

Hi, Fernando Espana (.us) has been elected to the ccNSO council in the North American region to replace Keith Drazek. Regards, Olga

1 0

Motion and Document Deadline - Tuesady 15 June 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010

Dear Councillors, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the Brussels Open Council meeting 23 June 2010 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Tuesday, 15 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

GNSO Council Resolutions 10 June 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010

Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was passed during the Council meeting on Thursday, 10 June 2010. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2 & 10 June) Made by: Edmon Chung Seconded by: Rafik Dammak Note: The original motion was discussed in the Council meeting on 20 May and deferred to 10 June. In making the amended motion, Edmon submitted a redline version to the Council list on 2 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html) and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html) WHEREAS: · The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; · The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook; · The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string; · The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet; RESOLVED: · A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy to the ICANN Board), requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". · ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010. · The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters. PROPOSED LETTER: To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team, CC: ICANN Board The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on ³String Similarity - Extended Review² that parallels other such sections in Module 2. This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be appropriate for applicants to request Extended Review for a string which has been denied further processing based on a finding of confusing similarity in the Initial Evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application that may result in a finding of no detrimental confusion notwithstanding the Initial Evaluation. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as: · The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that, although similar to an existing or applied for string, is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation, but not result in the detrimental user confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid. · A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation even though the delegation of both would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request. The motion passed with a majority of the Contracted Parties House and unanimously in the Non Contracted Parties House by roll call vote. Contracted Parties House : 5 votes in favour 2 Councillors absent, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis Non Contracted Parties House: 13 votes in favour Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ccNSO Update - Delegation - Re-Delegation Working Group
by Olga Cavalli June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010

Hi, Attache is a progress report from the Delegation Re-delegation working group together with an Issue Analysis document. Both of these will be formally published on the ICANN web site for comment soon. There will be a session to discuss these documents during the ccNSO members’ meeting in Brussels. Regards Olga

1 0

Motion on AoC; amendment
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Suggestion for amendment: The 2nd "Resolved" should read: Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the Endorsement Process for all future AOC review team selections, including the "WHOIS Policy" and the "Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS" Review Teams; Regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 3

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 10 June 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 10 June, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20100610.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Redline of proposed language
by Rosette, Kristina June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Here's the redline:

1 0

Language suggestions
by Rosette, Kristina June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Too complicated to say what changed where so here's some suggested revised language: This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be appropriate for applicants to request Extended Review for a string which has been denied further processing based on a finding of confusing similarity in the Initial Evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application that may result in a finding of no detrimental confusion notwithstanding the Initial Evaluation. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as: * The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that, although similar to an existing or applied for string, is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation, but no result in the detrimental user confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid. * A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation even though the delegation of both would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.

2 1

Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Preliminary Status: Step 2
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Hi Ken, Thanks for providing such a clear and concise response. I would venture to suggest that the fundamental question we should now be asking ourselves is whether the system, as currently proposed, would allow the GNSO Council to decide that projects should be stricken from the to-do list because they are rated too low in priority? A secondary question may be, should the GNSO Council determine that there is a finite number of projects that can be undertaken at the same time, considering the available resources (# of Councillors, # of support Staff, etc.)? I am copying the Council because this may be a point we want to discuss during our teleconference tonight. I guess what I am saying is that whilst prioritization is a good first step, to be truly efficient, the GNSO may want to decide that it can only work on 15 projects in one given time period (e.g. a year) and that more projects can only be added when one of the 15 is finished (the "15" is arbitrary here, I only use it to illustrate my idea, I am not suggesting that should be the number)? I freely admit to being inspired by Staff's batching idea for new gTLDs in this regard ;) Stéphane Le 9 juin 2010 à 22:26, Ken Bour a écrit : > Stéphane: > > I will try… > > You wrote: “I wonder if the reason we are not getting any projects with a lower score than 2 is that Councilors are not sufficiently aware that they can strike projects all together should they wish to when they rate them?” > > Shorter response: > 1) Councilors are rating projects lower than 2 in Value; lots of “1s” have been registered. > 2) My original comment about “>2” dealt with the Range statistic, not the individual Councilor project ratings. > > I apologize for using your inquiry to springboard into a broader discussion of central tendency measures, but I wanted to convey those thoughts to the WPM-DT while they were fresh on my mind. Sorry, if my explanation was overly confusing… > > Ken > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:56 PM > To: Ken Bour > Cc: gnso-wpm-dt(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Preliminary Status: Step 2 > > Hi Ken, > > Well if I was confused before, I am now completely flummoxed after trying to read your latest email :) > > If there's any way you can explain it to me in a couple of sentences, I would be grateful. If not, please just ignore my previous comment. > > Stéphane > > Le 9 juin 2010 à 15:18, Ken Bour a écrit : > > > Stephane: > > I think you might have misunderstood my comment. Every project’s Range statistic is > 2, which means that, when I subtract the highest rating from the lowest rating, that difference is larger than 2 for every project. On the surface, that statistic indicates a wide spread among certain Councilors as to their perception of the each project’s relative Value. It also means that there are no projects that can be automatically removed from the Brussels discussion based upon the individual ratings step, which required a Range of 2 or less. > > One of the possible improvement steps, going forward, may be to change the way that central tendency is measured after the individual ratings round. When we only had 5 testers, the Range looked like the best indicator; it is easy to calculate and understand. Now that I am seeing over a dozen values, the Standard Deviation might be a more useful statistic for determining agreement since the population size is so much larger. For example, out of 12 ratings for one particular project, we have the following ratings: 5, 3, 4, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4. Even though the Range is 3 (6-3), the Mode, the Median, and the Mean are all equal to 4 and the Standard Deviation is less than 1.0 (actually .8), which indicates a very tight spread not only statistically, but visually as well. For our current exercise, we will not be excluding this project from discussion; but, in the future, it could be a candidate for pre-determining agreement (in this case: Rating=4) on the basis of its low Standard Deviation. > > Here is one more example that is interesting. The 12 ratings thus far are: 6, 5, 7, 6, 5, 5, 7, 7, 4, 7, 7, 7. The Range=3, the Mode=7, Median=7, Mean=6, and Std Dev=1.04. I think a strong case could be made for accepting 7 as the group Value Rating although, if the rule were written such that Std Dev had to be < 1.00, it would fail the test. > > I expect to have a more fully thought-out recommendation once this part of the process has completed and I have more time to analyze the results. > > Lastly, I just want to be clear there are tons of individual project ratings that are “1” and, for that matter, “7”. From what I can discern in examining each Councilor’s spreadsheet, it doesn’t appear that anyone misunderstood the directions. Any value from 1-7 could be selected for any cell and, while some Councilors used the entire range and others did not, I don’t think there is anything to be concluded other than that is how they perceived Value across the range of Eligible Projects. > > Ken > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 6:30 AM > To: Ken Bour > Cc: gnso-wpm-dt(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Preliminary Status: Step 2 > > Thanks Ken for that update. I wonder if the reason we are not getting any projects with a lower score than 2 is that Councillors are note sufficiently aware that they can strike projects all together should they wish to when they rate them? > > Stéphane > > Le 8 juin 2010 à 21:08, Ken Bour a écrit : > > > > WPM-DT Members: > > I thought you might appreciate receiving a brief status report concerning Step 2-Individual Councilor Ratings… > > As of this afternoon, 8 June, I have received 12 Councilor ratings spreadsheets. The deadline, as you may know, has been extended to 9 June (tomorrow). Happily, other than a few names/dates being left off (I am saving the emails and renaming the attachments so that I can positively ID each one), the data aggregation process is going as planned and tested. No one, thus far, has failed to provide a 1-7 rating for each of the Eligible Projects. > > You may be interested, if not surprised, to learn that not a single project can be excluded from discussion after the individual rating step. Every project’s Range is already > 2 and, of course, it cannot get any tighter as more results are received. Of the 15 Eligible Projects: > · 11 or 73% have a Range >= 5 > · 7 or 46% have a Range = 6 (max) > > I have developed a consolidation spreadsheet, which is automatically color-coded to reveal the top/bottom ratings and the most prevalent answer (or Mode). Fortunately, several projects have pretty stable Mode/Median/Mean results meaning that, while we might have a couple of 7’s and 1’s (thus Range=6), most participants rated the project similarly. In a few cases, the Mode, Median, and Mean are the identical value indicating strong central tendency (so far)! In those instances, at least theoretically, it should be possible to influence the small number of outliers to move closer to the group’s most common rating. Even if that is not possible, after discussion, it will be somewhat comforting to know that there was reasonably strong agreement statistically. > > For Brussels, I estimate that we will have about 105 minutes net (if we can hold preliminaries to 15), which leaves an average of 7 minutes per project for discussion and polling. > > I am currently drafting a letter that I plan to send out early next week (14th or 15th) addressing as many preliminaries as possible so that the Brussels meeting (on Saturday morning) can be quickly focused on the group ratings discussions. This letter will cover such topics as: Councilor Preparation, Meeting Setup, Guiding Principles, and Process Flow (briefly). I will be encouraging participants to arrive a few minutes early so that we can speed up the routine process of settling in… > > If WPM-DT members would like to preview the letter before it goes out, please let me know. Although I recognize that you are all very busy, I would appreciate another set of eyes on this next communication... > > Regards, > > Ken Bour > > >

3 2

Notice of New Registry Service posted
by Patrick Jones June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on a request from EmployMedia to offer a Phased Allocation Program in dot-JOBS. Information on the proposal can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#201005. 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 1101 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: +1 202 596 5896 patrick.jones(a)icann.org patrickjones.tel

1 0

GNSO Council Agenda Thursday 10 June at 20:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting tomorrow, Thursday10 and for some Friday 11 June, please find the proposed agenda and reference documents below. Attached is the draft schedule for the GNSO working sessions on Saturday 19 and Sunday 20 June and other GNSO related meetings. In particular please note Item 8 sections 2 and 3, which have been added in the last couple of days to the agenda: Item 8: Other Business (5 minutes) 8.1 Agendas for Brussels meetings 8.2 Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO * Refer to email message from Chris Disspain forwarded by Chuck on 9 June. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html * Any objections to asking for volunteers to draft a possible charter? * Any volunteers? (Need not be Councilors) 8.3 Chuck Gomes's message to Kurt Pritz regarding geographical names http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09047.html Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 10 June 2010 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_10_june_2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-10jun10-en.htm 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. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-20may10-en.htm 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 AoC DT Endorsement Process (20 minutes) 3.1 Refer to http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-… 3.2 Overview of GNSO AoC RT Endorsement Process (Bill Drake) http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-… 3.3 Questions/Comments? 3.4 Motion * Refer to https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) 3.5 Discussion of AoC Selectors proposed composition of the SSR & Whois Review Teams SSR WHOIS_ GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent Expert 1 - 2 2 (law enforcement / privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13 - 14 10 Item 4: Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar names) (25 minutes) 4.1 General Discussion (continuation from 21 May meeting) 4.2 Amended Motion * Refer to https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions Brief Overview (Edmon Chung) * 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/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-01jun10-en.pdf 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.) Refer to Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf 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 (Ken Bour) 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 8.2 Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO * Refer to email message from Chris Disspain forwarded by Chuck on 9 June. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html * Any objections to asking for volunteers to draft a possible charter? * Any volunteers? (Need not be Councilors) 8.3 Chuck Gomes's message to Kurt Pritz regarding geographical names http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09047.html 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 very much. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

3 3

Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels
by Gomes, Chuck June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

<<Survey for Board meeting with GNSO in Brussels.docx>> Assuming I didn't miss anyone's preferences, here is a summary of support for discussion topics in our joint meetings in Brussels: GAC/GNSO meeting 1. DAG 4, including morality and public order o Support: Bill, Jaime, Wolf, Mary o Oppose: 2. AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews o Support: Bill, Jaime, Wolf, Mary o Oppose: 3. RAA o Support: Chuck, Mary? o Oppose: 4. IDN ccPDP o Support: o Oppose: Chuck, If there are no objections by Monday, I plan to suggest to Janis that we discuss topics 1 & 2 with the GAC. And would like to request a volunteer (or volunteers) to draft a brief (less than 5 minutes) intro to each topic including any questions we might have for the GAC. Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting 1. 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. o Support: Chuck, Stéphane o Oppose: 2. What do Board members understand about the AoC commitment to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace, with a particular focus on GNSO work o Support: Rosemary, Wolf o Oppose: 3. ICANN and Internet governance directions o Support: Terry, Bill, Jaime, Rafik, Mary o Oppose: Wolf 4. DAG 4, including morality and public order o Support: Wolf, Mary Note that I sent the attached survey to Bruce Tonkin for the purpose of getting individual Board responses and asking Bruce what the best way of doing that would be. ccNSO/GNSO meeting 1. DNS-CERT o Support: Chuck, Bill, Mary o Oppose: 2. Synchronized TLDs o Support: Andrei o Oppose: If there are no objections by Monday, I will send these topics to Chris. Andrei has volunteered to prepare a brief intro to the Synchronized TLDs topic. We need a volunteer for the DNS-CERT to do the same.

4 9

FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT
by Gomes, Chuck June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

Please note the request from Chris Disspain and the ccNSO below. I recognize that this is short notice before our meeting tomorrow, but I plan to add this to the agenda and squeeze it in. If there are no objections to pursuing the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO, I will ask for a few volunteers to draft a charter that could be considered in Brussels. Chuck From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT Chuck, In our conversation last week we discussed the possibility of the gNSO and ccNSO (along with other relevant ACs and independent experts) setting up the working group contemplated in the joint Chair's letter to ICANN of 25 March 2010 as soon as possible. I put this proposal to the ccNSO council on our call of 8 June and confirm that the council has agreed that in the event of the proposal also being agreed by the gNSO council, a small joint drafting team should work before Brussels to draft the charter for the establishment of a Working Group comprising representatives of ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee, Root Server System Advisory Committee, GAC, ALAC, CERT operators and ccTLD and gTLD managers to draw upon their collective expertise and to solicit their input on: * the broad concept of a DNS-CERT; * the current work being undertaken to mitigate DNS-related threats; * the actual level, frequency and severity of these threats; * the gaps (if any) in the current security response to DNS issues; * whether or not a DNS-CERT is a proposal they support; and * if so, the logistics of the proposal. The goal would be to have the charter approved by the ccNSO and gNSO in Brussels if possible so that we can announce the formation of the working group. I'm guessing that formally the working group will need to be a joint gNSO ccNSO group (as the 2 relevant supporting organisations that can actually make policy) with the charter mandating the involvement of the relevant ACs and outside experts. In the event that the gNSO council does approve the proposal then the action items will be a) to call for some volunteers to do the drafting along with Bart Boswinkel as ccNSO staff and an equivalent gNSO person and b) to approach the other ACs to inform them that this is occurring. I understand your council meets on 10 June 2010 and look forward to hearing from you regarding your discussions. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: 1300 732 929 <tel:1300%20732%20929> | F: 03 8341 4112 <tel:03%208341%204112> E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W:www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA - The Australian Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5183 (20100608) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

1 0