June 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

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

RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
by Tim Ruiz June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

I'm not too concerned about having only two seats on the Security RT, but strongly oppose accepting only two seats on the Whois. 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. I realize the ALAC and ccNSO can defend themselves, but given the selectors concerns over the team size I think we should respond with a total picture of what we think the RT should look like and why. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 1:44 pm To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Please note what the AoC Selectors have proposed for the next two RTs. Please provide any comments you have on this list. Time permitting, we will also briefly discuss this in meeting on 10 June. Chuck 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

11 25

Work Prioritization: Step 2 Status
by Ken Bour June 8, 2010

June 8, 2010

GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: Just a quick update to confirm the ratings spreadsheets received thus far (1700 EST on 7 June) and to let you know that, per a request from the Registrars, the deadline has been extended until 9 June 2010. Councilor Ratings Received: Andrei Kolesnikov Debra Y. Hughes Caroline Greer William J. Drake Terry Davis Mike Rodenbaugh Olga Cavalli Chuck Gomes Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Jaime Wagner Thank you for providing your input to this process! We are about half way completed and hope to receive the remainder of the ratings in the next two days. Again, if anyone needs assistance, please let me know. Thank you, Ken Bour ICANN Policy Staff Consultant Office: 703-430-4059 (EST)

3 2

FW: Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report -- additional redline version attached to highlight changes from initial report
by Liz Gasster June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

All, Attached please find a redline version of the draft final WHOIS Service Requirements Report which highlights the changes made from the Initial Report of 26 March. As described further in the text, the changes were primarily made as a result of input we received from members of the SO/AC community. Again, this is a "draft final" report which we will be discussing in Brussels. Please let Steve Sheng or me know if you think further changes should be made. Thanks to Chuck for suggesting that a redline would be useful. I wish I'd thought of it! :) Liz From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:43 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report attached for your review All, Attached please find a "draft" Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report for your review and discussion. This report includes input we received while soliciting the views of the SOs and ACs. We decided to leave the report as a draft to provide the opportunity for further input in Brussels. Dave Piscitello (and Steve Sheng remotely) will be facilitating a public consultation on the report, tentatively scheduled for Thursday morning at 9:30 Brussels local time. We will finalize the report shortly thereafter. Best regards, Liz

1 0

REMINDER:Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing
by Glen de Saint Géry June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

REMINDER: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27may10-en.htm Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing Meeting Details and How to Participate 27 May 2010 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming Brussels meeting remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Wednesday at 9 June at 13.00 and 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: .GNSO Vertical Integration Policy Development Process .GNSO Improvements .GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process .GNSO WHOIS Studies .ccNSO IDN PDP .ccNSO Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group .ASO Global policy for handling IPv4 address space The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the slides and MP3 will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, 13.00 UTC or 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Internet access at the Meridien *IS* provided
by Alan Greenberg June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

I just received a note from Kevin Wilson saying that in-room Internet is part of the package at the Meridien. The information originally provided by Constituency travel was incorrect. Sorry for starting a panic. Alan

1 0