June 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

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

June 6, 2010

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

4 5

FW: [council] Brussels hotel and Internet connectivity
by Gomes, Chuck June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

Kevin, Can you confirm that the information provided by Alan below is correct? (i.e., that Internet access will not be free at recommended hotels except for the Royal Windsor and that charges for it will come out of per diem allowances for ICANN funded travelers) Any other information you can provide in this regard would be appreciated as well. Thanks in advance, Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 5:57 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Brussels hotel and Internet connectivity One more point, the Travel Summary document said that the Meridien and Royal Windsor "are of the same class of service". However, the Royal Windsor's web site says that all guest rooms have free Internet (either wired or wireless). Alan At 05/06/2010 02:30 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I checked with Constituency Travel about whether breakfast and >Internet access were included in the Meridien hotel room prices paid >by ICANN for funded travellers (ALAC is staying there and I >understand GNSO also). > >The answer was that breakfast is included, but Internet access is not. > >According to their web site, the Meridien charges 15 Euros for >in-room access, and that public are access is also charged. That is >about US$18 or 1/4 of the per diem. > >ICANN's standard response in previous situations is that we should >simply go to the conference venue for after-hours access - never a >nice alternative, but clearly not at all practical with a venue >separate from the hotel(s). > >How we are expected to take over a week from our normal lives and not >have after-hours connectivity is a mystery to me. I thought we had >fought this battle before and won. > >ALAC has lodged a strong complaint. The GNSO or individuals within >the GNSO may want to take similar action. > >Alan

1 0

Brussels hotel and Internet connectivity
by Alan Greenberg June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

I checked with Constituency Travel about whether breakfast and Internet access were included in the Meridien hotel room prices paid by ICANN for funded travellers (ALAC is staying there and I understand GNSO also). The answer was that breakfast is included, but Internet access is not. According to their web site, the Meridien charges 15 Euros for in-room access, and that public are access is also charged. That is about US$18 or 1/4 of the per diem. ICANN's standard response in previous situations is that we should simply go to the conference venue for after-hours access - never a nice alternative, but clearly not at all practical with a venue separate from the hotel(s). How we are expected to take over a week from our normal lives and not have after-hours connectivity is a mystery to me. I thought we had fought this battle before and won. ALAC has lodged a strong complaint. The GNSO or individuals within the GNSO may want to take similar action. Alan

3 3

FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
by Gomes, Chuck June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

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

1 0

Amendment to IDNG Motion
by Edmon Chung June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Hi Everyone, Based on the discussions we had, and the feedback received from different people, I would like to make a number of changes to the Proposed Motion on New gTLD Recommendation (IDNG motion on clarifications for confusingly similar TLD string). The main change in the motion is the addition of a consideration for a 21 day comment period for the letter before it being sent by the council. Have also made various edits to address concerns raised by different people, including the issue raised by Kristina about potentially conflicting with the IRT report. Attached is a "red-lined" version highlighting the changes. Below is a clean version for consideration. Rafik, I wonder if you would be willing to consider the changes as friendly amendments? :-) Edmon Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2) =================================================== WHEREAS: • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 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. 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 “String Similarity - Extended Review” that parallels other such sections in Module 2. This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be justified for applicants for a string which has been denied further processing based on confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually detrimental. 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 is similar to an existing or applied for string in a manner that 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 deemed to be similar but not cause the detrimental 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 judged to be similar but their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.

4 7

GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Councillors, The Council chairs have been approached by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team with an enquiry about a possible meeting in Brussels. They told us they are having a public forum session on the Monday afternoon, but that they would also be happy to meet with ACs and SOs directly. They are trying to arrange a meeting with the GNSO SGs, but wanted to know if the Council as a whole was interested in meeting. They are meeting with the Board, the GAC and ALAC on Sunday afternoon and asked whether the GNSO Council could meet with them on Sunday morning. However, it has proven impossible to fit such a meeting into our already very full Brussels agenda without squeezing something else. Therefore, it would be useful to get an idea of whether Councillors think there would be value in meeting with the RT in light of the fact that meetings are already arranged with each SG. In fact, it would also be useful to know which SGs have a meeting planned with the RT. If people do want the Council as a whole to meet with the RT, then the question becomes where can we fit that meeting in our Brussels agenda. On the other hand, if separate SG meetings are being arranged, is there really any need for the Council as a whole to meet with the RT? Stéphane

10 27

FW: [soac-discussion] Updated background reports for Global Policy Proposals for ASNs and recovered IPv4
by Gomes, Chuck June 3, 2010

June 3, 2010

FYI Chuck From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 6:36 AM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: bill manning; woolf(a)isc.org; Louis Lee; secretariat(a)nro.net; Secretary Subject: [soac-discussion] Updated background reports for Global Policy Proposals for ASNs and recovered IPv4 To Chairs of ICANN SOs and ACs, FYI and for information to your membership: Attached are updated Background Reports for the Global Policy Proposal for "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" and for the "Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries". Both background reports will soon be posted on the ICANN website. Very best regards Olof ------------------- Olof Nordling Director, Services Relations ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>

1 0

COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT
by Gomes, Chuck June 3, 2010

June 3, 2010

I am hereby making the following motion in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for our 10 June Council meeting. Please note that on the OSC list the issue of whether the comments submitted in the public comment period (all 4 of them) might create a need to revise the CCT recommendations in some way was raised, but the OSC did not reach any decision one way or the other in that regard. After reviewing the comments myself, it did not appear to me that they would necessitate any changes, so I personally thought it best to go ahead and make the motion. If the Council thinks differently or, if between now and 10 June, the OSC takes a position on that, we can deal with that. But we will at least have the motion on the table so that we can take action if we are ready. Please make the members of your various groups aware of the motion as soon as possible. Thanks to Julie Hedland for drafting the motion. Chuck COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 May 2010 meeting, accepted the deliverable of the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) as its final set of recommendations; WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm> completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis <http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html> has been prepared; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period; NOW, BE IT THEREFORE: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.p df> of the CCT, without further modification, and directs Staff to begin work on implementation. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council accepts the CCT's specific recommendation to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council appreciates the thoughtful feedback of those community members who contributed to the Public Comment Forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/> and directs Staff to consider their suggestions and recommendations during the implementation phase; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby discharges the CCT and expresses its gratitude and appreciation for the team's dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

2 1

JIG updates
by Edmon Chung June 3, 2010

June 3, 2010

Hi Everyone, The JIG had its kick-off meeting on March 30, and started its bi-weekly meeting since April 20 (except for cancelling on the May 4th meeting). The group has identified 3 topics of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLD 2. IDN TLD Variants 3. Universal Acceptability of IDN TLDs The group has received briefing from staff on issue 1, and had discussions regarding issue 2 (still awaiting staff briefing on the issue nevertheless). There will be 1 meeting of the group in Brussels (tentatively scheduled for Sunday June 20, but we are still hoping to coordinate timing so that Tina Dam from staff can join the meeting as her briefing on issue 2 is important for the group's work). In the last meeting, the group discussed the interest to start working on a document from the group for consideration on the 3 issues. Edmon

1 0

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

June 2, 2010

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

2 1