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