August 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth Nov. 2, 2010

Nov. 2, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter of the proposed new City Top-Level Domain Constituency submitted by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG. This significant step represents the fourth formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the new GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition which will extend into July. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the Board's review. I have shared a copy of the attached documents with the Board and will be sending copies to the GNSO Constituencies leaders list as well. The document is now also posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.@icann.org Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 1

MOTION TO ENDORSE VOLUNTEERS
by Olga Cavalli Sept. 3, 2010

Sept. 3, 2010

Dear Council Members, I am sending this motion for your consideration. A second is welcome. Best regards Olga * * * * *MOTION TO ENDORSE VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE ON THE AOC REVIEW TEAMS:* WHEREAS, in furtherance of ICANN’s responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitments, applicants are being sought to volunteer to serve on the review teams for Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-en.htm>and Whois Policy <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-4-en.htm>; WHEREAS, these AOC review teams will include members endorsed by the GNSO Council; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to endorse applicants to serve on the review teams for Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-en.htm> (SSR) and Whois Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-4-en.htm> ; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that pursuant to the approved Endorsement Process<http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-…>, the following applicants are hereby endorsed by the GNSO Council to serve on the AOC review teams listed below: *SSR Review Team:* Jeff Brueggeman David Cake Rick Wilhelm Ken Silva George Asare Sakyi *WHOIS Policy:** * Susan Kawaguchi Kim G. Von Arx James Bladel Kathy Kleiman RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Secretariat is requested to forward, as appropriate, the names of the endorsed applicants to serve on the “WHOIS Policy” and “Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS” review teams to the RT Selectors.

4 5

ICANN Board resolutions passed today
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 2, 2010

Sept. 2, 2010

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm Adopted Board Resolutions 5 August 2010 1.Executive Session – No resolutions 2.Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Minutes of 23 June 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting b. Approval of Minutes of 25 June 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting c. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs: i. Sri Lanka ii. Thailand d. Approval of RSEP Request for Allocation of 1 and 2-Character Domains in .TRAVEL e. From the Security & Stability Advisory Committee i. Bylaw changes ii. Membership appointments to initial term lengths f. From the Structural Improvements Committee – Receipt of Final Report from RSSAC Review Working Group g. Receipt and Posting for Public Comment of the Application to be a New UDRP Provider – No resolution h. Approval of the At-Large Improvements Implementation Plan 3. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs a. Occupied Palestine Territory b. Tunisia c. Jordan 4. CEO's Report – No Resolution 5. Chair Remuneration 6. International Dimension of ICANN 7. Approval of RSEP Request for Phased Allocation Program in .JOBS 8. Update on New gTLD program – No resolution 9. ICM Registry Application for .XXX sTLD 10. Data & Consumer Protection 11. From the ASO – Ratification of Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers 12. UDRP Status Briefing – No resolution 13. Any Other Business – No resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note: Posting of the approved resolutions within two business days after the Board meeting is required under the ICANN Bylaws. The preliminary report and minutes will be posted on the website at a later time, providing additional information. 1.Executive Session – No resolutions 2.Consent Agenda: ================= RESOLVED, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby approved: a. Approval of Minutes of 23 June 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting RESOLVED (2010.08.05.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 23 June 2010 Board Meeting. b. Approval of Minutes of 25 June 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting RESOLVED (2010.08.05.02), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 25 June 2010 Board Meeting. c. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs: i. Sri Lanka Whereas, Sri Lanka is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Whereas, .ලංකා ("Lanka"), encoded as "xn--fzc2c9e2c"; and .இலங்கை ("Ilangai"), encoded as "xn--xkc2al3hye2a"; are both strings that have been deemed to appropriately represent Sri Lanka through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received requests for delegation of .ලංකා and .இலங்கை to LK Domain Registry. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the requests, and has determined that the proposed delegations would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.03), the proposed delegation of .ලංකා to LK Domain Registry is approved. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.04), the proposed delegation of .இலங்கை to LK Domain Registry is approved. ii. Thailand Whereas, the Thailand is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Whereas, .ไทย ("Thai"), encoded as "xn--o3cw4h", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Thailand through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .ไทย to the Thai Network Information Center Foundation. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.05), the proposed delegation of the .ไทย domain to the Thai Network Information Center Foundation is approved. d. Approval of RSEP Request for Allocation of 1 and 2-Character Domains in .TRAVEL Whereas, Tralliance submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the .TRAVEL Registry Agreements to allocate one and two-character domain names via a phased allocation process. Whereas, the proposed release of single and two-character domain names in .TRAVEL would be consistent with the recommendations of the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group and other approvals to permit the release of one and two-character domain names. Whereas, ICANN has evaluated the proposed amendment to the .TRAVEL Registry Agreement as new registry services pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and has posted amendments for public comment and Board approval (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/) RESOLVED (2010.08.05.06), the .TRAVEL amendment is approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendments. e. From the Security & Stability Advisory Committee i. Bylaw changes Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws governs the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Whereas, in its final report published 29 January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ssac/ssac-review-wg-final-report-29jan10-en…, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recommended SSAC membership appointments be for a term of three years renewable by the Board at the recommendation of the SSAC Chair indefinitely, and that the terms be staggered to allow for the terms of one-third of the SSAC members to expire at the end of every year. Whereas, on 12 March 2010, the Board received the SSAC final report and directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to identify actions necessary to address the recommendations within the report, at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1.6. Whereas, Article XI, Section 2(2)(b) http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XIof the Bylaws states that the SSAC chair and members shall be appointed by the Board, and does not state any term for such appointments. Whereas, staff supporting the SIC have identified that a Bylaws amendment is required in order to implement the recommended change to the SSAC membership appointments. Whereas, in Resolution 2010.06.25.04 the Board directed the CEO to have staff draft proposed Bylaws amendments addressing the recommendations arising out of the SSAC review Working Group and to post the proposed Bylaws amendments for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. Whereas, the proposed amendments were posted for public comment for a period of 30 days beginning 02 July 2010 and ending 01 August 2010, Whereas, staff provided the Board with a summary and analysis of the public comments received and recommended that the Board approve the Bylaws revisions as posted at http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaws-revision-ix-2-02jul10-en.pdf. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.07), the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as posted for public comment in furtherance of the recommendations arising out of the SSAC review Working Group. ii. Membership appointments to initial term lengths Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws governs the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Whereas, in its final report published 29 January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ssac/ssac-review-wg-final-report-29jan10-en…, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recommended SSAC membership appointments be for a term of three years renewable by the Board at the recommendation of the SSAC Chair indefinitely, and that the terms be staggered to allow for the terms of one-third of the SSAC members to expire at the end of every year. Whereas, the Board, at Resolution 2010.08.05.xx approved Bylaws revisions that create three-year terms for SSAC members, require staggering of terms, and obligate the SSAC chair to recommend the re-appointment of all current SSAC members to full or partial terms to implement the Bylaws revisions. The SSAC Chair must provide those recommendations prior to 1 January 2011. As noted in the Bylaws, prior to 1 January 2011, the SSAC shall remain comprised as stated in the Bylaws as amended 25 June 2010. Whereas, the Chair of the SSAC provided recommendations to the Board in fulfillment of his obligations under the Bylaws. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.08), the Board accepts the recommendation of the SSAC Chair and appoints the following SSAC members to partial terms of one year commencing on 01 January 2011 and ending on 31 December 2011: Harald Alvestrand, KC Claffy, Steve Crocker, Rodney Joffe, Mark Kosters, Russ Mundy, Ray Plzak, Christophe Reverd, Mark Seiden, Bruce Tonkin, Stefano Trumpy, Patrick Vande Walle, Paul Vixie; the Board appoints the following SSAC members to partial terms of two years commencing on 01 January 2011 and ending on 31 December 2012: Alain Aina, Jaap Akkerhuis, Patrik Fältström, James Galvin, Douglas Maughan, Ram Mohan, Frederico Neves, John Schnizlein, Doron Shikmoni, Rick Wesson, Richard Wilhelm, Suzanne Woolf; the Board appoints the following SSAC members to full terms of three years commencing on 01 January 2011 and ending on 31 December 2013: Roy Arends, Jeffrey Bedser, Duncan Hart, Jeremy Hitchcock, Sarmad Hussain, Warren Kumari, Matt Larson, Xiaodong Lee, Danny McPherson, Shinta Sato, Vanda Scartezini, Danny McPherson, Shinta Sato, Vanda Scartezini, Dan Simon. f. From the Structural Improvements Committee – Receipt of Final Report from RSSAC Review Working Group Whereas, after public comment, the RSSAC review Working Group (WG) has delivered to the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) its final report of activity, which contain conclusions and recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of this structure; Whereas, at its 22 July 2010 meeting, the SIC recommended that the Board receive the final report, thank the members of the RSSAC review WG, and dissolve the RSSAC review WG, which has fulfilled the tasks assigned to it at the time of establishment; Whereas, the SIC also recommended that the ICANN Board direct the SIC with presenting a set of suggested implementation actions arising out of the Final Report for Board consideration and approval at the 28 October 2010 meeting of the Board. Resolved (2010.08.05.09), the Board receives the final report of the RSSAC review Working Group. Resolved (2010.08.05.10), the Board thanks the Chair and Members of the RSSAC review Working Group: Harald Alvestrand (Chair), Steve Crocker and Bruce Tonkin, for their commitment and ability to fulfil their tasks. Resolved (2010.08.05.11), the Board dissolves the RSSAC review Working Group. Resolved (2010.08.05.12), the Board directs the Structural Improvements Committee to present a set of suggested actions for approval at the October 2010 Board meeting, so as to address the conclusions and recommendations formulated in the final report of this Working Group. g. Receipt and Posting for Public Comment of the Application to be a New UDRP Provider – No resolution h. Approval of the At-Large Improvements Implementation Plan Whereas, on 26 June 2009, the Board resolved to direct ICANN Staff to assist the At-Large community in developing a proposed implementation plan and timeline for the recommendations in the ALAC Review Final Report (except for the recommendation to provide At-Large with voting seats) and to submit these to the Structural Improvements Committee for review and Board approval. (Resolution 2009.06.26.12). Whereas, at its 19 June 2010 meeting, the SIC acknowledged receipt from staff and the At-Large community of an implementation plan, with timeline, "ALAC/At‐Large Improvements Implementation Project Plan", dated 7 June 2010, and resolved to recommend it to the ICANN Board for consideration. Whereas, at its 25 June 2010 Meeting, the Board directed ICANN's CEO to provide the Board with a summary of the "ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project Plan" dated 7 June 2010, for consideration at the next Board meeting, if practicable. (Resolution 2010.06.25.10). It is hereby RESOLVED (2010.08.05.12), that the Board approve the ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project Plan and directs ICANN's CEO to take action according to the ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project Plan and report back on the progress at the 2010 Annual General Meeting. Main Agenda: ============ 3. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs ============================ RESOLVED (2010.08.05.13), the Board IANA Committee is directed, in coordination with ICANN's CEO, to create improvements to the processes and new guidelines for implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process. a. Occupied Palestine Territory Whereas, the Occupied Palestinian Territory is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Whereas, فلسطين ("Falasteen"), encoded as "xn--ygbi2ammx", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent the Occupied Palestinian Territory through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of فلسطين. to the Ministry of Telecom and Information Technology of the Palestinian National Authority. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.14), the proposed delegation of the فلسطين. domain to the Ministry of Telecom and Information Technology is approved. b. Tunisia Whereas, Tunisia is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; Whereas, تونس ("Tunis"), encoded as "xn--pgbs0dh", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Tunisia through the IDN Fast Track process; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of تونس. to Agence Tunisienne d'Internet; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities; RESOLVED (2010.08.05.15), the proposed delegation of the تونس. top-level domain to Agence Tunisienne d'Internet is approved. c. Jordan Whereas, Jordan is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Whereas, الاردن ("al-Ordon"), encoded as "xn--mgbayh7gpa", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Jordan through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of الاردن. to the National Information Technology Center. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.16), the proposed delegation of the الاردن. domain to the National Information Technology Center is approved. 4. CEO's Report – No Resolution 5. Chair Remuneration ===================== Whereas, the Board has determined that it is appropriate to consider reasonable compensation for the Chair of the Board of ICANN. Whereas, in order for the Board to approve any level of compensation for the Board Chair the Bylaws must be revised. Whereas, at the Board's direction, the proposed Bylaws revisions providing for compensation for the Board Chair were posted for public comment for 30 days. Whereas, in authorizing the consideration of Board Chair compensation and the posting of proposed Bylaws revisions, the Board followed all requirements to ensure that the Compensation Committee and the Board followed the process set forth in the United States Treasury Regulation intended to enable the Board to establish the presumption that the compensation to be paid to the Board Chair is reasonable (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#7) Whereas, the Board has confirmed that it has continued to follow all steps necessary to enable the Board to establish the presumption that the compensation to be paid to the Board Chair is reasonable for federal income tax purposes. Whereas, the Board has considered the public comments, as well as all other information received, including the independent analysis from Towers Watson on reasonable compensation for the Board Chair. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.17), the proposed revisions to ICANN's Bylaws, Article VI, section 22, are hereby adopted and staff is directed to update the ICANN Bylaws accordingly. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.18), the Board approves compensation for the Board Chair in the amount of $75,000 per year, to paid out on a pro-rata basis beginning as of 12:01 a.m. on 6 August 2010 as calculated at ICANN's headquarters in Marina del Rey, California. 6. International Dimension of ICANN ================================== RESOLVED (2010.08.05.19), the Board confirms the establishment of a Board Global Relationships Committee and adopts the proposed Global Relationships Committee Charter. The Board Governance Committee shall provide recommendations for the composition of the Global Relationships Committee. 7. Approval of RSEP Request for Phased Allocation Program in .JOBS ================================================================= Whereas, EmployMedia submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend Appendix S of the .JOBS Registry Agreement permit the registration and allocation of .jobs domain names through a phased allocation process. Whereas, the proposal was submitted to ICANN following the policy development process defined in its delegated authority in Appendix S as a sponsored TLD, with the endorsement of the sponsoring organization for .JOBS, the Society for Human Resource Management. The proposal is also consistent with other approvals to permit the registration and allocation of certain types of domain names via phased allocation mechanisms. Whereas, ICANN has evaluated the proposed amendment to the Appendix S of the .JOBS Registry Agreement as a new registry service pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and has posted amendments for public comment and Board approval (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/) RESOLVED (2010.08.05.20), the .JOBS amendment is approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendments. 8.Update on New gTLD program – No resolution 9.ICM Registry Application for .XXX sTLD ========================================= Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has completed the expedited due diligence regarding ICM Registry, as directed by the Board, and has concluded that ICM has represented that its Application for the .XXX sTLD is still current and that there have been no negative changes in ICM's qualifications. Whereas, ICANN Staff is in consultation with ICM on a new proposed registry agreement for the .XXX sTLD and expects to receive a finalized proposal from ICM. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.21), upon receipt of ICM's application documentation, ICANN Staff is authorized to post ICM's supporting documents and proposed registry agreement for the .XXX sTLD for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.22), upon completion of public comment period, ICANN Staff shall provide the Board with a summary of the public comments and shall make a recommendation to the Board as to whether the proposed registry agreement for the .XXX sTLD is consistent with GAC advice. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.23), once the Board has received the above public comment summary and recommendation from the ICANN Staff regarding the proposed registry agreement for the .XXX sTLD, the Board shall at its next possible meeting, consider this recommendation, and determine, consistent with the ICANN Bylaws, whether a GAC consultation shall be required. 10. Data & Consumer Protection =============================== Whereas, the use of registry data has been a topic of consideration, particularly as the subject relates to the registrant protection issues. Whereas, given the import of the topic, further discussion is warranted. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.24), the Board will establish a board working group to identify issues relating to the use of registry data and where registrant protection might be further explored or proposed policies might be introduced. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.25), the Board asks the Board Governance Committee to assist in following the Process for Establishment of Board Working Groups for the formation of a Registry Data Working Group, including the selection of members and drafting of proposed terms of reference. 11. From the ASO – Ratification of Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers ======================================================================================== RESOLVED (2010.08.05.26), the Board acknowledges the receipt of the Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers, which is currently posted for public comment. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.27), after the close of the public comment period, the Board Executive Committee is directed to consider the Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers within the timeframe mandated under the ICANN/NRO Memorandum of Understanding. 12. UDRP Status Briefing – No resolution 13. Any Other Business – No resolution

2 3

Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting
by Caroline Greer Sept. 1, 2010

Sept. 1, 2010

Dear Council Members, In advance of our next Council meeting on 8th September and in order to meet the submission deadline of today, I would like to re-submit the Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the ICANN Board. That motion is set out below. Many thanks, Kind regards, Caroline. ************************************************************** Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and, Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding that the VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to produce consensus recommendations in a final report. RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.

3 2

New GNSO Council Operating Procedures.
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 31, 2010

Aug. 31, 2010

Dear Council Members, In preparation for the Council meeting on 8 September 2010 at 15:00 UTC. Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 8 September 2010. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_8_september_2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-08sep10-en.htm the motions that will be before the Council are posted on the Wiki. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_september_motions May we remind you of the new GNSO Council Operating Procedures. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf Please review the Abstentions Guidelines on page: http://gnso.icann.org/council/docs.html and in particular the: *Visual Procedures Map covering abstentions, absences, and vacancies http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm *Abstention Notification Form to be completed by an officer of the abstaining Councilor's appointing organization (Stakeholder Group or Constituency, as appropriate) http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Please note that Ken Bour is available to provide the Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies and the Council members with an overview of these procedures. Please let me know if you need assistance in scheduling an overview session. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 8 September 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 31, 2010

Aug. 31, 2010

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 8 September 2010. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_8_september_2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-08sep10-en.htm This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf 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 15:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT; 11:00 EST; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; 17:00 CET; 19:00 Moscow, 20:00 Karachi, 23:00 Hong Kong, 00:00 Thursday, 9 September 00:00 Tokyo, 01:00 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. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (15 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest * Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the proecedures: "Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue." * The main issues for this meeting are: o GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs o Whois studies o Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG 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: * 26 August 2010 meeting - Scheduled for Approval on 16 September 2010. Item 2: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (10 minutes) 2.1 Refer to: * GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ * GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm * GNSO Whois RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm 2.2 SG primary & alternate endorsements: CSG NCSG RrSG RySG SSR Primary Jeff Brueggeman David Cake (Australia) Rick Wilhelm Ken Silva SSR Alternate(s) George Asare Sakyi Whois Primary Susan Kawaguchi Kim G. Von Arx James Bladel Kathy Kleiman Whois Alternate(s) 2.3 Summary of Geographic & Gender Diversity for SG Primary Endorsements: SSR RT Whois RT # from Africa 0 0 # from Asia/Pacific 1 0 # from Europe 0 1 # from Latin America & Caribbean 0 0 # from North America 3 3 # Male 4 2 # Female 0 2 2.4 Possible Candidates to Improve Diversity: SSR RT Whois RT Africa George Asare Sakyi None Asia/Pacific N/A None Europe None N/A Latin America & Caribbean None None North America N/A N/A Number Male N/A N/A Number Female None N/A Note the ccNSO endorsements: SSR RT: Ondrej Filip from Europe, Rodney Joffe from North America and Simon McCalla from Europe (for two seats) Whois RT: Emily Taylor from Europe (for one seat) 2.5 Should the GNSO add one or two candidates to improve diversity of either RT slate? * Motion to approve the GNSO SSR RT slate including adding George Asare Sakyi https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8 September Motions * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) Note: GNSO endorsement slate is due to Selectors not later than 12 September 2010. Item 3: Whois Studies (15 minutes) 3.1 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 * Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/whois/whois-studies-chart-30jul10-en.pdf * Brief overview of the study choices presented by Lisa Phifer on 15 July: http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-whois-report… 3.2 Motion to proceed with Study # 1 * Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8 September Motions * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) Item 4: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (15 Minutes) 4.1 Refer to Revised Initial Report from the WG http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial-report… 4.2 Deadline for submission of report to the Board for their retreat: 13 September 2010. 4.3 Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8 September Motions * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) Item 5: Suggested Improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings (15 minutes) 5.1 Proposed recommendations (Wendy Seltzer) 5.2 Discussion Note: Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September 5.3 Next steps? Item 6: Suggestions for GNSO Council Interaction with the Board (15 Minutes) 6.1 Proposed recommendations (Stéphane Van Gelder) * The Sunday dinner is a good socializing event. * Another session with the Board should be held during the ICANN meeting week. - This should be scheduled before the Sunday dinner, perhaps as a 1-hour session on Sunday at 4pm. - The dinner should happen off-site, but somewhere close to the venue, at 6pm, on the first Sunday of the ICANN meeting week. - A structured agenda is required to make the 4 pm session work, and to ensure broad attendance. This should be worked on by the GNSO Council through advance planning and liaising with the relevant entities. * Unless anyone objects, this group should be disbanded after our Sept 8 meeting and Glen may close the group's email list. 6.2 Discussion Note: Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September 6.3 Next steps? Item 7: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community WG (20 minutes) 7.1 Refer to motion to approve Rec6 CWG ToR: (insert link) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8 September Motions * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) 7.2 Brief progress report including possible recommendations (Margie Milam) 7.3 Discussion of possible recommendations 7.4 Preliminary GNSO Council comments? Item 8: Status of Continued Action Items (10 Minutes) 8.1 Registration Abuse Policies WG Recommendations Action Plan (Marika Konings) 8.2 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) 8.3 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) * Volunteers to date:Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG) * Should we involve the OSC and PPSC chairs? * Next steps? Charter? 8.4 Prioritization of GNSO Projects (Chuck Gomes) Item 9: Other Business (5 Minutes) 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 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS Draft Privacy/Proxy Reveal study RFP - Q and A call scheduled for this Thursday and deadline extended to Friday 3 Sept. for written input
by Liz Gasster Aug. 31, 2010

Aug. 31, 2010

All, I am extending the deadline for your input on the WHOIS "reveal" study RFP until this Friday 3 September, as I understand that there are a few who would like a bit of extra time to comment. Also, I am hosting an informal question-and-answer session this Thursday, 2 September, at 17:00 UTC for interested Council members. It will be a chance to ask questions about the methodology and details of the proposed study, and to provide input on areas where we are seeking additional guidance, as noted in the italicized boxes throughout the draft. Note that the Q-and-A session is to discuss study details and methodology, not to debate the merits of such a study. If you would like to participate, or if you would like to send a designee to participate on your behalf, please contact Glen directly for dial-in information. Again, this is not intended for broad based discussion or debate. Please come prepared with specific questions or concerns about this RFP. If questions that arise lead to requests for material changes to the study scope or design, I will ask for those to be put in writing and shared on the Council list. Thanks, Liz From: Liz Gasster Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:05 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Update on WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study and Draft RFP on Privacy/Proxy Reveal study for your review - deadline 30 August 2010 All, As you know, ICANN staff has been researching the feasibility and cost to study several high priority aspects of WHOIS, soliciting bids using an RFP approach to determine costs and feasibilities. That RFP process has been completed for two studies (WHOIS Misuse and WHOIS Registrant Identification) but is still underway for two more studies (WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Abuse and WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Reveal). The purpose of this email is to provide an update regarding progress our on the latter two studies. WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Studies A small staff review team has completed careful review and preliminary assessment of three RFP responses received for WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse studies. The review team's consensus is that two proposals were of high quality, exhibiting many unique strengths and deserving of serious consideration. However, we were unable to assess whether either proposal would realistically produce required results at bid cost without clarifications regarding each proposed project's scope, methods, and associated efforts. As a result, staff has requested further detail from these two bidders, offering them approximately a month (until 16 September) to supply clarifications to be considered in our final assessment. Although we regret this delay, staff cannot provide a meaningful and confident assessment without clarification. We expect to deliver our final assessment of WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse study feasibility, merits, limitations, and costs to the Council approximately two weeks after the above due date. WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Reveal Studies Staff has completed a draft Terms of Reference for WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Reveal studies (see attached). Staff believes this draft is now ready for your review prior to publication with an RFP soliciting bids. Feedback received from subject matter experts has been incorporated into this draft, helping to refine and sharpen study scope, methods, and inputs. Several issues that make this study especially challenging have been considered. Rationale and review questions are highlighted in italicized boxes throughout the draft, but you should feel free to comment on any aspect. In particular, we ask that those who generate relay and reveal requests during their normal course of business examine proposed inputs and comment on the feasibility of providing them, were they to participate in this study. Comments on draft WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Reveal Studies should be sent to me by 30 August 2010. Our goal is to publish this RFP in September for a 60-day period, generating responses to be assessed in November. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Liz

1 0

Motion to Support Rec6 CWG
by Gomes, Chuck Aug. 31, 2010

Aug. 31, 2010

It was suggested to me that it would be a good idea to document our support for the community working group that the GAC requested to discuss new gTLD recommendation 6 on morality and public order. In follow-up to that suggestion, I am making the following motion. Chuck Motion To Support A Cross Community Working Group On New gTLD Recommendation 6 WHEREAS, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program contains appropriate safeguards to address culturally objectionable and/or sensitive strings, while protecting internationally recognized freedom of expression rights; WHEREAS, numerous stakeholders have expressed concerns about the proposed implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 regarding procedures for addressing culturally objectionable and/or sensitive strings; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to participate in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board with regard to the implementation of recommendation 6; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a cross-community working group to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board with regard to the implementation of recommendation 6; RESOLVED FURTHER, that Stéphane Van Gelder shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this cross-community working group until 13 September 2010; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves the Terms of Reference <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-gtld-final-recommendations-6-com…> to guide the activities of this cross-community working group; RESOLVED FURTHER, that ICANN Staff shall identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed.

2 1

RE: [council] SECONDING the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting
by Gomes, Chuck Aug. 31, 2010

Aug. 31, 2010

Thanks to both of you for meeting the motion deadline. Chuck From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:54 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; Caroline Greer; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] SECONDING the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting Hello everyone, Please ignore any email you may see from me re-submitting the VI motion, as Caroline's on the same subject was sent immediately prior. As such, I am happy to second the motion as made by Caroline (below). BTW email delivery delays to/from me are probably due to Franklin Pierce Law Center having - just yesterday! - officially become the University of New Hampshire (UNH) School of Law, through a formal affiliation with UNH. Ironically, we have spent much of the previous week transitioning our web presence to our new .edu domain :) (which is http://law.unh.edu) Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu <http://law.unh.edu/> >>> From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer(a)mtld.mobi> To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: 8/31/2010 12:18 PM Subject: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting Dear Council Members, In advance of our next Council meeting on 8th September and in order to meet the submission deadline of today, I would like to re-submit the Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the ICANN Board. That motion is set out below. Many thanks, Kind regards, Caroline. ************************************************************** Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and, Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding that the VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to produce consensus recommendations in a final report. RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community. As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu <http://law.unh.edu>

1 0

Motion and Document Deadline - Tuesday, 31 August 2010 for Council meeting on 8 September 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 30, 2010

Aug. 30, 2010

Dear Councillors, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on 8 September 2010 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Tuesday, 31 August 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 3