September 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

7 October Meeting - Request for AOB Agenda Item
by Rosette, Kristina Sept. 29, 2010

Sept. 29, 2010

All, I would like to add to our agenda (perhaps under AOB?) a status update from the appropriate staff person on the efforts to hire a new Director of Compliance and additional Compliance personnel necessary to bring current staff levels back up to 100%. (It's my understanding that the Compliance department is well under 100% staffing at the moment.) Glen - would you please forward this request to the appropriate staff person(s)? Many thanks. Kristina

1 0

Proxy Voting Procedures
by Ken Bour Sept. 28, 2010

Sept. 28, 2010

Chuck, Mary, et al.: I am not entirely sure that this will help resolve the confusion, but the absences and vacancies procedures are contained in Section 3.8-Incidental Absences of the GOP, not Section 4.5. I copied out the following paragraph (3.8.1-a) that pertains to your discussion… a. Planned Absence: It is understood that, from time to time, it may be necessary for a GNSO Council member to miss a scheduled meeting due to a conflicting personal or professional obligation or other planned event that cannot be reasonably altered. i. When a Councilor anticipates being absent or late for a Council meeting, the Councilor is expected to notify (e.g. telephone, e-mail) the GNSO Secretariat as soon as practicable before the meeting begins. ii. A Councilor is expected to vote on such motions as may come before the GNSO Council using the alternative means provided in Section 4.4-Absentee Voting, if applicable. If circumstances will not permit voting using the alternative means available, the Councilor may declare an intention to abstain on those motions that are scheduled to be voted upon during the GNSO Council meeting at which the Councilor expects to be absent. In such an instance, the procedures in Section 4.5-Abstentions will apply. In essence, in the case of a planned absence, the Councilor is permitted to declare an intention to abstain and that action affords the SG/C of the remedies in Section 4.5 (e.g. proxy). Unplanned absences, covered in 3.8.1(b), are not remediable due to lack of advanced notice. To execute any voting remedy does not require that a Councilor determine or indicate whether an abstention is “volitional” or “obligational.” Those categories were drafted to explain the types of abstentions that can occur -- illustrated with a few examples that were not intended to be exhaustive. A planned absence could possibly be interpreted as volitional or obligational depending upon the circumstances; but, again, it is not necessary to disclose which classification applies in any abstention situation. Once a Councilor knows, in advance of a Council meeting, that he/she will be absent, that is sufficient declaration to request a voting remedy from the SG/C. If you have any other questions, I would be pleased to answer them. Ken Bour From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 11:34 AM Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; ken.bour(a)verizon.net Subject: RE: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Thanks for the prompt and helpful answer, Chuck. I actually agree and understand that the inclusive language in 4.5.2(a), regarding examples of volitional absence, was intended to also cover the sort of situations I'd raised (particularly when read with the "either/or" voting universe contemplated by 3.8.1.) The underlying problem, as I see it, is that the actual language of 4.5.2(a) in two respects creates potential uncertainty going forward (particularly some time down the road when many of those involved in drafting and initially implementing these new procedures are no longer on Council). These two respects are (1) the use of the words "elects to refrain from ... voting" in 4.5.2(a) (which implies a positive choice rather than one required by a necessary absence); and (2) the examples used to illustrate possible basis for such a choice. Although inclusive in nature, all three examples point toward instances which relate to a Councillor's substantive inability to discharge his/her duties responsibly. Either or both of these issues could result - down the road - in possibly narrower interpretations of the abstention voting procedures than we now are contemplating. Helpful though our email discussions are, unfortunately they are not official minutes of a Council meeting or formal resolutions of a Council discussion. It occurs to me that issues of interpretation such as the one I raised could appropriately be referred, as a matter of implementation oversight, to our Standing Committee for a formal confirmation that this particular interpretation is correct for the record. I'm not sure how we are supposed to do this, but I'd be happy to draft and submit a brief motion for Council consideration at the next meeting, if that's the way to do it. 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 >>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> To: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> CC: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Date: 9/24/2010 6:08 PM Subject: RE: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Mary, I think you are missing something. In my opinion, if a Councilor cannot make a meeting, the procedures apply, as long as there is sufficient lead time to follow the procedures. What makes you think that “instances where a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting” are not covered? Note the following from Section 4.5: · “When circumstances regarding a potential voting abstention occur that would otherwise prevent a Councilor from discharging his/her responsibilities (see Paragraph 4.5.2), the Councilor’s appointing organization is provided a set of remedies (see Paragraph 4.5.3) designed to enable its vote to be exercised.” · “Circumstances may occur when a Council member elects to refrain from participating and voting for reasons that may include, but are not limited to . . .” (Section 4.5.2.a) Please note the phrase “not limited to”. I believe that “instances where a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting” are covered here. BTW, I definitely do not view you as “being a pest”. It is essential that we all learn the nuances of the new procedures so that we can use them appropriately and as easily as possible. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:07 AM Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; ken.bour(a)verizon.net Subject: Re: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Hi, Besides the procedural issue, my concern was, and is, the sense (from reviewing the new Council operating procedures) that if a Councilor is going to be absent from a vote, the only way he/she can actually get to vote - assuming the issue is not one that relates specifically to a PDP Bylaw, Council procedure or vacancy (which triggers the Absentee Voting procedures in 4.4) - is on issues that dictate an abstention. The problem is that 4.5 (on Abstentions) presuppose only 2 situations where an abstention is justified: (1) volitional (where a Councillor "elects to refrain from participating and voting", see 4.5.2(a); and (2) obligational (i.e. professional, personal or political conflicts), see 4.5.2(b). These then trigger the procedural remedies we've discussed (including a proxy vote). I completely agree that Councilors are fully expected and required (including in 4.5.1) to participate actively and discharge their duties responsibly, such that instances of absent and/or proxy voting are minimized and not encouraged. However, it seems to me that there will be instances where a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting, but fully wishes to vote on a motion that is not one that triggers either 4.4 or 4.5. In other words, he/she does not need to "elect to refrain" from voting, and is not otherwise obligated to abstain. As currently worded, neither 4.4 nor 4.5 (including the language on proxies) would seem to cover this type of situation, which arguably could be handled via a relatively straightforward proxy process. Am I missing something, reading the procedures too narrowly, or ... ? (maybe being a pest? :) Thanks and cheers Mary In such a case, the new Operating Procedures do not seem to allow for a relatively simple - but documented and accountable - mechanism by which such a case could be handled through a proxy. 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 >>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> CC: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Date: 9/8/2010 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Thanks Chuck. I had read that very article as I prepared for today's meeting yesterday, as I was looking at the various links pertaining to absences and voting that Glen sent to the Council list before this meeting. I did not have the same understanding as you re the requirement to request for a proxy in advance of the meeting (where does it say that in sub-section i. below?). I would argue that in Tim's case, the appointing organization, i.e. the RrSG, had established a position. This was not 'stated' on the public Council list, but article i. does not say this should be done in this way. I agree there is ambiguity here and my intent is not to second-guess the decision you made in today's meeting. But as this processes are still a bit new to us all, I just want to make sure we iron out some of the wrinkles so that if we have this type of situation again, we know how to handle it. Thanks, Stéphane Le 8 sept. 2010 à 19:25, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : Here is my response to Stéphane’s question regarding the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) requirements regarding proxy voting. Here is the applicable excerpt from the GOP, Section 4.5.3.b, Remedies: “Proxy Voting The second method to be considered in avoiding the consequences of an abstention is the use of proxy voting, where the vote of an abstaining Councilor is transferred to another GNSO Councilor. i. For abstentions declared by Councilors not appointed by the Nominating Committee and where voting direction is not a viable remedy, the appointing organization may transfer the vote of the abstaining Councilor to: (1) the House Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA), (2) another of its Constituency Councilors (where applicable), or (3) another Councilor within the Stakeholder Group. The appointing organization must be able to establish an affirmative or negative voting position, subject to provisions contained in its Charter or Bylaws, on the applicable measure/motion for which one of its Councilors has declared an intention to abstain. The Councilor to whom the vote is transferred shall exercise a vote in line with the appointing organization’s stated position. ii. If an abstention is declared by a House NCA, once formal notification has occurred pursuant to the procedures in Paragraph 4.5.4-a, a proxy is automatically transferred to the GNSO Council’s unaffiliated NCA (hereinafter Council NCA) and any vote cast will be counted within the House to which the abstaining NCA is assigned. The Council NCA may exercise only one proxy at a time; therefore, the first abstention remedy properly transferred to the Council NCA, including all measures/motions specified, takes precedence. It should be noted that, because NCAs do not have an appointing organization, as defined in these procedures (see Section 1.3.1), to provide specific voting direction, the Council NCA may exercise his/her best judgment, including abstaining, on the matter at issue. If the Council NCA abstains or does not cast a vote for any other reason, no further remedies are available and the automatic proxy will be nullified. The original House NCA will be recorded in the minutes as having abstained from the vote.” If I interpret the above correctly, for proxies to have been allowed in today’s meeting the following would have need to have happened in advance: The appointing organization of the Councilor who has to abstain (because of planned absence or other reasons) “must be able to establish an affirmative or negative voting position” and that would have needed to have sent to Secretary. I believe Staff has prepared a template to facilitate this. That did not happen in any of the cases where proxies were requested today. I cc’d Rob and Ken so that they can correct me if my interpretation is in error. Chuck 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 <http://law.unh.edu> law.unh.edu 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 <http://law.unh.edu> law.unh.edu

6 12

Proxy Voting Procedures
by Ken Bour Sept. 28, 2010

Sept. 28, 2010

Hi Kristina: As Chuck mentioned, please see previously announced tools that can be accessed at this GNSO website link: http://gnso.icann.org/council/docs.html 1) Voting Remedies Visual Map: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm 2) Abstention Notification Form (online): http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Were these the kind of tools you had in mind? Note: if you click on any of the notes in the visual map, sample language is available for the various emails that would be sent. Ken P.S. These tools were described in an email sent by Liz Gasster to the Council and SG/C Leaders on 18 Aug 2010 (attd). From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:43 AM To: 'Ken Bour' Cc: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Thanks, Ken. Speaking personally, a stripped-down, super-simplified "cheat sheet" summary of rules and procedures for proxies and abstentions would be very helpful. Also, to the extent the rules require submission of communications, having access to template forms would also be very helpful. Is something like that possible? K _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Bour Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 2:05 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; cgomes(a)verisign.com Cc: 'Council GNSO'; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; liz.gasster(a)icann.org Subject: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Chuck, Mary, et al.: I am not entirely sure that this will help resolve the confusion, but the absences and vacancies procedures are contained in Section 3.8-Incidental Absences of the GOP, not Section 4.5. I copied out the following paragraph (3.8.1-a) that pertains to your discussion a. Planned Absence: It is understood that, from time to time, it may be necessary for a GNSO Council member to miss a scheduled meeting due to a conflicting personal or professional obligation or other planned event that cannot be reasonably altered. i. When a Councilor anticipates being absent or late for a Council meeting, the Councilor is expected to notify (e.g. telephone, e-mail) the GNSO Secretariat as soon as practicable before the meeting begins. ii. A Councilor is expected to vote on such motions as may come before the GNSO Council using the alternative means provided in Section 4.4-Absentee Voting, if applicable. If circumstances will not permit voting using the alternative means available, the Councilor may declare an intention to abstain on those motions that are scheduled to be voted upon during the GNSO Council meeting at which the Councilor expects to be absent. In such an instance, the procedures in Section 4.5-Abstentions will apply. In essence, in the case of a planned absence, the Councilor is permitted to declare an intention to abstain and that action affords the SG/C of the remedies in Section 4.5 (e.g. proxy). Unplanned absences, covered in 3.8.1(b), are not remediable due to lack of advanced notice. To execute any voting remedy does not require that a Councilor determine or indicate whether an abstention is volitional or obligational. Those categories were drafted to explain the types of abstentions that can occur -- illustrated with a few examples that were not intended to be exhaustive. A planned absence could possibly be interpreted as volitional or obligational depending upon the circumstances; but, again, it is not necessary to disclose which classification applies in any abstention situation. Once a Councilor knows, in advance of a Council meeting, that he/she will be absent, that is sufficient declaration to request a voting remedy from the SG/C. If you have any other questions, I would be pleased to answer them. Ken Bour From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 11:34 AM Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; ken.bour(a)verizon.net Subject: RE: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Thanks for the prompt and helpful answer, Chuck. I actually agree and understand that the inclusive language in 4.5.2(a), regarding examples of volitional absence, was intended to also cover the sort of situations I'd raised (particularly when read with the "either/or" voting universe contemplated by 3.8.1.) The underlying problem, as I see it, is that the actual language of 4.5.2(a) in two respects creates potential uncertainty going forward (particularly some time down the road when many of those involved in drafting and initially implementing these new procedures are no longer on Council). These two respects are (1) the use of the words "elects to refrain from ... voting" in 4.5.2(a) (which implies a positive choice rather than one required by a necessary absence); and (2) the examples used to illustrate possible basis for such a choice. Although inclusive in nature, all three examples point toward instances which relate to a Councillor's substantive inability to discharge his/her duties responsibly. Either or both of these issues could result - down the road - in possibly narrower interpretations of the abstention voting procedures than we now are contemplating. Helpful though our email discussions are, unfortunately they are not official minutes of a Council meeting or formal resolutions of a Council discussion. It occurs to me that issues of interpretation such as the one I raised could appropriately be referred, as a matter of implementation oversight, to our Standing Committee for a formal confirmation that this particular interpretation is correct for the record. I'm not sure how we are supposed to do this, but I'd be happy to draft and submit a brief motion for Council consideration at the next meeting, if that's the way to do it. 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 >>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> To: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> CC: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Date: 9/24/2010 6:08 PM Subject: RE: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Mary, I think you are missing something. In my opinion, if a Councilor cannot make a meeting, the procedures apply, as long as there is sufficient lead time to follow the procedures. What makes you think that instances where a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting are not covered? Note the following from Section 4.5: · When circumstances regarding a potential voting abstention occur that would otherwise prevent a Councilor from discharging his/her responsibilities (see Paragraph 4.5.2), the Councilors appointing organization is provided a set of remedies (see Paragraph 4.5.3) designed to enable its vote to be exercised. · Circumstances may occur when a Council member elects to refrain from participating and voting for reasons that may include, but are not limited to . . . (Section 4.5.2.a) Please note the phrase not limited to. I believe that instances where a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting are covered here. BTW, I definitely do not view you as being a pest. It is essential that we all learn the nuances of the new procedures so that we can use them appropriately and as easily as possible. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:07 AM Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; ken.bour(a)verizon.net Subject: Re: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Hi, Besides the procedural issue, my concern was, and is, the sense (from reviewing the new Council operating procedures) that if a Councilor is going to be absent from a vote, the only way he/she can actually get to vote - assuming the issue is not one that relates specifically to a PDP Bylaw, Council procedure or vacancy (which triggers the Absentee Voting procedures in 4.4) - is on issues that dictate an abstention. The problem is that 4.5 (on Abstentions) presuppose only 2 situations where an abstention is justified: (1) volitional (where a Councillor "elects to refrain from participating and voting", see 4.5.2(a); and (2) obligational (i.e. professional, personal or political conflicts), see 4.5.2(b). These then trigger the procedural remedies we've discussed (including a proxy vote). I completely agree that Councilors are fully expected and required (including in 4.5.1) to participate actively and discharge their duties responsibly, such that instances of absent and/or proxy voting are minimized and not encouraged. However, it seems to me that there will be instances where a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting, but fully wishes to vote on a motion that is not one that triggers either 4.4 or 4.5. In other words, he/she does not need to "elect to refrain" from voting, and is not otherwise obligated to abstain. As currently worded, neither 4.4 nor 4.5 (including the language on proxies) would seem to cover this type of situation, which arguably could be handled via a relatively straightforward proxy process. Am I missing something, reading the procedures too narrowly, or ... ? (maybe being a pest? :) Thanks and cheers Mary In such a case, the new Operating Procedures do not seem to allow for a relatively simple - but documented and accountable - mechanism by which such a case could be handled through a proxy. 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 >>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> CC: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Date: 9/8/2010 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures Thanks Chuck. I had read that very article as I prepared for today's meeting yesterday, as I was looking at the various links pertaining to absences and voting that Glen sent to the Council list before this meeting. I did not have the same understanding as you re the requirement to request for a proxy in advance of the meeting (where does it say that in sub-section i. below?). I would argue that in Tim's case, the appointing organization, i.e. the RrSG, had established a position. This was not 'stated' on the public Council list, but article i. does not say this should be done in this way. I agree there is ambiguity here and my intent is not to second-guess the decision you made in today's meeting. But as this processes are still a bit new to us all, I just want to make sure we iron out some of the wrinkles so that if we have this type of situation again, we know how to handle it. Thanks, Stéphane Le 8 sept. 2010 à 19:25, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : Here is my response to Stéphanes question regarding the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) requirements regarding proxy voting. Here is the applicable excerpt from the GOP, Section 4.5.3.b, Remedies: Proxy Voting The second method to be considered in avoiding the consequences of an abstention is the use of proxy voting, where the vote of an abstaining Councilor is transferred to another GNSO Councilor. i. For abstentions declared by Councilors not appointed by the Nominating Committee and where voting direction is not a viable remedy, the appointing organization may transfer the vote of the abstaining Councilor to: (1) the House Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA), (2) another of its Constituency Councilors (where applicable), or (3) another Councilor within the Stakeholder Group. The appointing organization must be able to establish an affirmative or negative voting position, subject to provisions contained in its Charter or Bylaws, on the applicable measure/motion for which one of its Councilors has declared an intention to abstain. The Councilor to whom the vote is transferred shall exercise a vote in line with the appointing organizations stated position. ii. If an abstention is declared by a House NCA, once formal notification has occurred pursuant to the procedures in Paragraph 4.5.4-a, a proxy is automatically transferred to the GNSO Councils unaffiliated NCA (hereinafter Council NCA) and any vote cast will be counted within the House to which the abstaining NCA is assigned. The Council NCA may exercise only one proxy at a time; therefore, the first abstention remedy properly transferred to the Council NCA, including all measures/motions specified, takes precedence. It should be noted that, because NCAs do not have an appointing organization, as defined in these procedures (see Section 1.3.1), to provide specific voting direction, the Council NCA may exercise his/her best judgment, including abstaining, on the matter at issue. If the Council NCA abstains or does not cast a vote for any other reason, no further remedies are available and the automatic proxy will be nullified. The original House NCA will be recorded in the minutes as having abstained from the vote. If I interpret the above correctly, for proxies to have been allowed in todays meeting the following would have need to have happened in advance: The appointing organization of the Councilor who has to abstain (because of planned absence or other reasons) must be able to establish an affirmative or negative voting position and that would have needed to have sent to Secretary. I believe Staff has prepared a template to facilitate this. That did not happen in any of the cases where proxies were requested today. I ccd Rob and Ken so that they can correct me if my interpretation is in error. Chuck 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 <http://law.unh.edu> law.unh.edu 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 <http://law.unh.edu> law.unh.edu

1 0

GAC comments on new gTLDs and DAGv4 - dated 23 Sept 2010
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 28, 2010

Sept. 28, 2010

From: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-23sep10-en.… Governmental Advisory Committee Chairman Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board ICANN Cc: Rod Beckstrom President and CEO ICANN 23 September 2010 RE: GAC Comments on new GTLDs and DAGv4 Dear Peter, Further to the Brussels communiqué and following national consultations and exchanges between GAC members, the GAC is now able to provide more detailed comments regarding the new gTLD round. This letter also takes into account points made in your letter of 5 August 2010 in response to the GAC's earlier comments relating to version 3 of the draft applicant guidebook (DAG). The GAC reiterates its support for the proposed introduction of new gTLDs in view of their potential for increasing competition, promoting innovation and diversity, and increasing access to the Internet. The GAC recognises the efforts of the Board and staff to address the issues raised by the GAC and the wide range of stakeholders with regard to the DAG and the new gTLD programme generally. The GAC has expressed throughout its engagement with the Board on the launch of the new gTLD programme its overarching concern that ICANN should accurately determine the permissible scale of the new round in terms of both the technical impacts on the stability and operation of the domain name system, and the economic and market impacts, in particular with regard to competition, innovation and trade mark protection. Root scaling ============= With regard to the technical impacts and in particular the "root scaling" issues which continue to be a paramount concern for governments in the expectation that ICANN will continue to guarantee the security and stability of the root zone as its top priority, the GAC notes your expectation that "the rate of growth of the root zone would remain linear". The GAC would be grateful for sight of the analysis in support of this statement in your letter, together with a definition of how many TLDs which ICANN expects to be able to add within this parameter of linear growth of the root zone. Given the unpredictability of the number of applications for new gTLDs, the GAC asks that consideration be given to creating a procedure, akin to a control or brake mechanism. This procedure should be used by ICANN to prevent the root from growing too rapidly and allow ICANN to mitigate any strain on the overall domain name system caused by the new gTLD programme at a time when it is expected that the rate of adding internationalized domain names (IDNs) to the root is expected to increase significantly. There is clearly a need to avoid root change congestion at the operational level and the potential problems that might flow from resource demands on the root operators already faced with extra strings being to be added to the root to accommodate IDNs. It is quite conceivable for example that a major commercial gTLD such as a "dot.bank" would require labels in up to 20 scripts. The ability of the root operators to keep in step with the number of IDN labels and at what rate of addition will need careful assessment. The GAC considers that this would further justify a control procedure in the rate of gTLD delegations that would serve to keep all the actors in line including the root operators as well as ensuring that the system remains properly integrated. This control mechanism would of course require carefully designed and clearly understood public policy criteria to be established in the applicant guidebook before implementation. Market and Economic Impacts =========================== Although it was published too late to be taken into account at the Brussels meeting, the GAC welcomes the publication of "An Economic Framework for the Analysis of the Expansion of gTLDs" (the report). The GAC looks forward to receiving the case analysis that is to follow this report. A key issue identified in the report is that ICANN has insufficient information to enable it to predict with certainty the economic impacts of the delegation of a large number of new gTLD strings. The GAC notes in this context the suggestion contained in the economic analysis that ICANN address this problem through conducting a small pilot programme with the aim of collecting relevant information and then using this data to refine and improve the application rules for the subsequent rounds. Such a proposal would have the support of many governments as consistent with sound technical and management practice when embarking on such a transformative initiative as the full opening up of the gTLD space in the domain name system. At the same time, the GAC is aware that there may be a number of relatively straightforward, non-sensitive and uncontroversial gTLD proposals - including community-based initiatives - which are being unduly delayed as a result of wider operational and policy development issues that do not directly concern or involve them. In the GAC's view, these applications could be considered as part of a fast track first round. Instituting such a first phase of the gTLD round would also serve to "road test" the core application procedures and bed them in before subjecting them to the handling of more complex applications. The GAC also notes in this respect that the fast track process for IDN ccTLDs could serve as a useful benchmark. The GAC concludes therefore that an initial fast track round for a limited number of non-controversial applications which should include a representative but diverse sample of community, cultural and geographical applications, would be a preferable course for ICANN to take rather than a single open-ended launch. Ensuring equity and fair play in the application process for this limited first round would require a fully open community discussion and clear direction in the applicant guidebook. The GAC recommends that ICANN undertake a full review of the results of the fast track process before embarking on subsequent rounds. Furthermore, such a limited approach to the initial launch round would be consistent with the several cross-community discussions that have taken place since the Nairobi meeting which in the GAC's view have successfully highlighted the social and economic benefits of track differentiation between categories. Specifically, the GAC recommends that such categorization be used in a more clearly defined version of the application batching process set out in version 4 of the DAG. It will be important of course in the design and implementation of this process to be mindful of the risk of potential "gaming" by applicants and there should be provisions to prevent market distortions. Registry-registrar separation ============================== The GAC notes the significant work being done within the ICANN community to resolve the difficult issue of registry-registrar separation. The GAC looks forward to further discussion of this important issue. The GAC notes that CANN has incorporated strict rules in version 4 of the DAG under which registrars are not able to provide registry services or to operate a new gTLD. Governments generally support restrictions on vertical integration and cross-ownership as important devices for promoting competition, preventing market dominance and averting market distortions. The GAC notes in this regard the Salop and Wright report and recognizes that vertical separation may be warranted where a market participant wields, or may in the future wield, market power. However, the GAC also recognises that if market power is not an issue, the ability of registrars with valuable technical, commercial and relevant local expertise and experience to enter the domain names market could likely lead to benefits in terms of enhancing competition and promoting innovation. An important additional benefit which the GAC expects would flow from such an exemption would be that community-based TLD applicants would be able to cast their net more widely in securing partners with the necessary expertise and experience in the local market to undertake what would be relatively small scale registry functions. The GAC therefore urges ICANN to resolve the current debate about registry-registrar separation with a solution that fosters competition and innovation in the DNS market by allowing exemptions, subject to some form of regulatory probity that ensures a level playing field, for certain registrars as potentially valuable newcomers to the registry market. ICANN may find it useful to consider the experience of competition regulators around the world in addressing this issue. Protection of rights owners =========================== The GAC notes with great concern that brand-owners continue to be faced with substantial and often prohibitive defensive registration costs which constitute a negative impact on their business planning and budgeting over which they have no control. Consultations by individual GAC members with business stakeholders underline how this issue remains a fundamental downside to the expansion of the gTLD space, far outweighing any perception of opportunities for innovation and customer-orientated benefits from the creation of corporate brand TLDs. In the current financial and economic climate, these consultations reveal that many individual businesses (including small and medium-sized enterprises) and media entities - some with large families of brands - find themselves without a sound business case to justify high levels of expenditure on large numbers of domain name registrations, most of which they are unlikely ever to use. Many of those that do decide to commit valuable financial resources for acquiring such defensive registrations will need to take some difficult decisions as to how to prioritize their efforts to avoid as much abuse of their trademarks as possible, in the knowledge that they will not be able to prevent all the potential abuse of their brands that the new gTLD round will facilitate. This problem is exacerbated by lack of awareness: a recent survey carried out by 'World Trademark Review' showed that over 50% of respondents did not understand the implications for them of the gTLD programme. The GAC remains of the view, therefore, that more concerted attention needs to be paid by ICANN to mitigate the costs to brand-owners of new gTLDs arising from the need to acquire defensive registrations. The GAC urges ICANN therefore to reach out more effectively to the business community to set out both the opportunities for corporate business and the cost implications for brand-owners of the expansion of the gTLD space. The GAC notes the efforts to enhance through process the protection of rights owners as recounted in your letter of 5 August and developed in version 4 of the DAG. In particular, the GAC welcomes the expansion of the Trademark Clearing House to allow all nationally registered trademarks including those not substantially reviewed. However, the GAC shares the views of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) that ICANN should ensure that the Trademark Clearing House operates on non-discriminatory terms and does not impose a validation fee depending on the source of the trademark. The GAC also recommends that the match criteria for searches be extended to include results that combine a trademark and a generic term (e.g. "Kodakcameras"). The GAC also urges ICANN to ensure that all new rights protection mechanisms complement the existing UDRP. The GAC has serious concerns with regard to the way in which the draft Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) which governments had supported has evolved so as to require a much higher burden of proof while limiting marks eligible for a URS claim to only those which have been subject to substantive review or validated in the Clearing House with the associated cost and time implications. As a result, the GAC believes that the aim of achieving a light-weight mechanism has been compromised with the successive drafting of the URS, to the extent that it no longer serves as a viable alternative for rights-holders to the UDRP in securing the timely suspension of domain names. The GAC looks forward to the opportunity for further consultations with ICANN staff on these issues relating to the operation of the Clearing House and the URS. Post-delegation Disputes with governments ========================================== The GAC welcomes the proposal for contractual clauses in the registry agreement to respect a legally binding decision in the relevant jurisdiction in the event of dispute between a Government which has provided a letter of support or non-objection and a gTLD registry. However, the GAC would appreciate a response from ICANN on an outstanding point concerning the GAC view that the operations of registry operators of "geo-TLDs" should be conducted under the legal framework of the country the government administration of which provided the letter of support letter or non-objection to ICANN. The GAC believes that this requirement would remove any doubt or concern about legal conflict. Use of geographical names ========================= The GAC appreciates the work undertaken by ICANN to address the GAC's concerns relating to the use of geographical names. In particular, the GAC welcomed the addition of the clearly stated provision in version 4 of the DAG that country and territory names are to be excluded from the first application round. However, as stated in its Nairobi communiqué, the GAC underlines that this exclusion should be prolonged until the completion of the ccPDP. The GAC notes that the guide still does not take fully into consideration the GAC's concerns about extending the protection of geographical names. The GAC remains of the view that the definition of geographical strings continues to be insufficient and inconsistent with GAC gTLD principles and earlier advice by the GAC. In particular, names by which countries are commonly known as and which do not appear in ISO lists should also be given the same protection as country names that do appear. The GAC notes that ICANN referred governments to the "secondary avenue of recourse available by way of objections" in the Chair's letter of 5 August 2010. The GAC therefore asks ICANN to ensure that the criteria for community objections are implemented in a way that appropriately enables governments to use this instrument to protect their legitimate interests. Applications for gTLDs which are city names will need careful handling. The GAC considers that the provisions in version 4 of the DAG in relation to city names carry the danger that an applicant could seek to avoid the safeguards of government support or non-objection if the application simply states that the intended use of the name is for non-community purposes. The GAC asks ICANN to review the proposal in the DAG in order to ensure that this potential loophole does not arise. The GAC takes this opportunity to remind the Board that governments need time to consult internally before deciding on whether or not to deliver a letter of approval or non-objection, in particular in cases there is more than one application for a string with a geographical name. This timeline needs to be factored into the DAG advice. The GAC also reiterates its position that governments should not be required to pay a fee for raising objections to new gTLD applications. There are a number of reasons why sovereign nations should not pay fees to object to strings which they consider to be objectionable: - sovereign nations are not protecting a commercial interest (as opposed, for example, to the protection of trademarks) but are instead protecting their national interests and the public interest (as they see it); - the cost of blocking a controversial gTLD for a Government may be less than the upfront cost of opposing a controversial gTLD. If ICANN's policy objective is for one unified Internet, it should ensure that sovereign nations have low costs in raising their concerns about individual gTLDs in the first instance; and - as a general principle of public policy, the group responsible for causing a regulatory response should bear the cost of that regulatory response. This is consistent with the principle that the collective (i.e. tax payers, citizens) does not bear a burden caused by special interest groups, without a substantial and identifiable public benefit. Legal Recourse for Applicants ============================= The GAC supports a framework whereby applicants can legally challenge any decision made by ICANN with respect to the application. The GAC believes therefore that the denial of any legal recourse as stated in Module 6 of the DAG under item 6 is inappropriate. The GAC cannot accept any exclusion of ICANN's legal liability for its decisions and asks that this statement in the DAG be removed accordingly. Addressing the needs of developing countries ============================================= The GAC notes the concerns expressed at the Internet Governance Forum in Vilnius on 16 September that the new gTLD round as currently framed carries the risk of excluding the participation of developing countries in the gTLD round and thereby ensuring cultural and linguistic diversity. The GAC reiterates its strong belief that the new gTLD process should meet the global public interest in promoting a fully inclusive and diverse Internet community and infrastructure, consistent with the Affirmation of Commitments. The GAC therefore urges ICANN to set technical and other requirements, including cost considerations, at a reasonable and proportionate level in order not to exclude stakeholders from developing countries from participating in the new gTLD process. Key documents produced by ICANN must be available in all UN languages within a reasonable period in advance of the launch of the gTLD round. The GAC strongly recommends that the communications strategy for the new gTLD round be developed with this issue of inclusiveness as a key priority. Yours sincerely, Heather Dryden Interim Chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee, Senior advisor to the Government of Canada

1 0

RE: [council] Vertical Integration
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

Agreed. We should at least have this issue on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Vertical Integration > From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > Date: Sun, September 26, 2010 9:07 pm > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like the Board punted this... yet again. > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.11 > > > > Can’t we just send them the letter already? > > > > This was my idea from the start. Call the WG closed, mark the > interim report final and let’s move on. > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

ICANN Board resolutions from Board meeting over the weekend
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm 1. New gTLD Program Budget 2. New gTLDs - Directions for Next Applicant Guidebook 2.1. Geographic Names 2.2. New gTLD Applicant Support 2.3. Root Zone Scaling 2.4. String Similarity 2.5. Variant Management 2.6. Trademark Protection 2.7. Role of the Board 2.8. Mitigating Malicious Conduct 2.9. GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6 Objection Process 2.10. Registry Agreement 2.11. Vertical Integration 3. Data and Consumer Protection Working Group 4. Board Global Relationships Committee 5. Nominating Committee Chair 6. March 2011 International Public Meeting 7. Appointment of Akram Atallah as Chief Operating Officer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- 1. New gTLD Program Budget =========================== Whereas, the Board Finance Committee considered the New gTLD Deployment Budget at its meeting on 20 September 2010 and unanimously recommended that the Board adopt the Deployment Budget <link to be inserted when available>. Whereas, the Board considered and discussed the New gTLD Application Processing Budget at its 24-25 September 2010 retreat in Trondheim, Norway. Resolved (2010.09.25.01), that the New gTLD Deployment Budget and the New gTLD Application Processing Budgets are approved. The Deployment Budget is to be released in order to enable the launch of the program on a timely basis upon Board approval of the Applicant Guidebook. The Application Processing budget should be released upon the approval of the final Applicant Guidebook. 2. New gTLDs - Directions for Next Applicant Guidebook ======================================================= Whereas, ICANN's primary mission is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Whereas, ICANN's Core Values include "depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment" where feasible and appropriate, and "introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." Whereas, in June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>, and directed staff to develop detailed implementation plans in communication with the community. Whereas, one of the goals of the New gTLD program is to establish a clear and predictable process. Whereas, ICANN seeks to mitigate risks and costs to ICANN and the broader Internet community to the extent possible. Whereas, meeting these goals require tradeoffs and balancing of competing interests. Whereas, in Brussels the ICANN Board resolved <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#11> to dedicate its retreat scheduled for 24-25 September for the consideration of all the outstanding issues relating to the implementation of the New gTLD program. Whereas, the Board held a retreat in Trondheim, Norway on 24-25 September 2010, and talked through the outstanding issues relating to the implementation of the New gTLD program in order to identify potential ways forward. Whereas, the Board has identified certain directions to the CEO regarding items for inclusion in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD program. Whereas, the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook will be posted for public comment, and ICANN will take into consideration all public comments before making final decisions on all these remaining issues by approving the final version of the Applicant Guidebook. Whereas, on 23 September 2010, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided comments on version 4 of the draft Applicant Guidebook. Resolved (2010.09.25.02), staff is directed to determine if the directions indicated by the Board below are consistent with GAC comments, and recommend any appropriate further action in light of the GAC's comments. Resolved (2010.09.25.03), the Board gives the CEO the following directions relating to the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs, which is intended to be posted for public comment before the ICANN meeting in Cartagena in December 2010: 2.1 Geographic Names ===================== Sub-national place names: Geographic names protection for ISO 3166-2 names should not be expanded to include translations. Translations of ISO 3166-2 list entries can be protected through community objection process rather than as geographic labels appearing on an authoritative list. Continents and UN Regions: The definition of Continent or UN Regions in the Guidebook should be expanded to include UNESCO's regional classification list which comprises: Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean. Governments that file objections should be required to cover costs of the objection process just like any other objector; the objection process will be run on a cost-recovery and loser-pays basis (so the costs of objection processes in which governments prevail will be borne by applicants). Also, the Board notes that the GAC proposal for free government objections is not specific as to particular objection grounds or particular government objectors (for example whether both national and local government objectors would be covered). 2.2 New gTLD Applicant Support ============================== Support to applicants will generally include outreach and education to encourage participation across all regions, but any direct financial support for applicant fees must come from sources outside of ICANN. Staff will publish a list of organizations that request assistance and organizations that state an interest in assisting with additional program development, for example pro-bono consulting advice, pro-bono in-kind support, or financial assistance so that those needing assistance and those willing to provide assistance can identify each other and work together. Owing to the level of uncertainty associated with the launch of new gTLDs, the fee levels currently in the Applicant Guidebook will be maintained for all applicants. 2.3 Root Zone Scaling ====================== Real-world experience in root zone scaling has been gained as a result of the implementation of IPv6, DNSSEC and IDNs and the hard work of RSSAC and SSAC members in tackling the underlying stability question. Staff is directed to publish its analysis of the impact of IPv6, DNSSEC and IDN deployment on the root zone so far. Staff has also developed a model and a rationale for the maximum rate of applications that can be processed over the next few years. Staff is directed to publish this model and rationale and to seek Board support for the judgments embodied in this model, thereby providing a firm basis for limiting the rate of new delegations. Based on the discussions to date, this limit is expected to be in the range of 1,000 new delegations per year, with this number to be defined precisely in the publication. The Board notes that an initial survey of root server operators' ability to support this rate of growth has been conducted successfully, and directs staff to revisit the estimate on a regular basis and consider whether a further survey should be repeated . Further, ICANN will periodically consult with root zone operators regarding a procedure to define, monitor and publish data on root zone stability. As part of the regular interaction with the root server operators, ICANN will invite inputs from the root server operators and other interested parties regarding any signs of stress in the system and advice as to what actions or changes in process might be appropriate. Finally, in the event that the number of applications exceeds the maximum rate, an objective method for determining the order of application processing that conforms to the limited delegation rate (not relying primarily on time-stamping) will be defined in the Applicant Guidebook. 2.4 String Similarity ===================== Similar strings should not be delegated through the New gTLD Program absent an in-depth policy examination of the issues, including a clear, enforceable set of operating rules to avoid possible user confusion. Community-suggested modifications raise a complex set of policy issues and cannot be considered as a straightforward implementation matter for the first round of applications. Further policy work in this area is encouraged. 2.5 Variant Management ======================== No changes will be made to the next version of the Applicant Guidebook with respect to the handling of gTLDs containing variant characters. I.e., no variants of gTLDs will be delegated through the New gTLD Program until appropriate variant management solutions are developed. The recent delegation of Chinese-language ccTLDs does not yet provide a generally workable approach for gTLDs; there are serious limits to extending this approach at this time. ICANN will coordinate efforts to develop long-term policy and technical development work on these issues. The Board notes that the following scenarios are possible while evaluating variant gTLD strings: 1.Applicant submits a gTLD string and indicates variants to this string. The applicant, if successful, will get the primary string. The indicated variant strings are noted for future reference, and these variant strings will not be delegated to the applicant; the applicant has no rights or claim to those strings. ICANN may independently determine which strings are variants of each other, and will not necessarily acknowledge that the applicant's list of purported variants be treated as variants under the process. 2.Multiple applicants apply for strings that are variants of each other. They will be in contention. 3.Applicant submits a request for a string and does not indicate that there are variants. ICANN will not identify variant strings unless scenario 2 above occurs. The CEO is directed to develop (in consultation with the board ES-WG) an issues report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs as part of the new gTLD process in order to facilitate the development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs. The analysis of needed work should identify the appropriate venues (e.g., ICANN, IETF, language community, etc.) for pursuing the necessary work. The report should be published for public review. The CEO is directed to produce for the board by the next Board meeting (28 October 2010): 1. A Work plan for developing the issues report. 2. An identification of the skills and capabilities needed by ICANN to complete the issues report and further develop ICANN's organizational ability to continue the strategic rollout of IDN TLDs. 2.6 Trademark Protection ======================== Substantive Evaluation: The Applicant Guidebook will provide a clear description of "substantive evaluation" at registration, and retain the requirement for at least substantive review of marks to warrant protection under sunrise services and utilization of the URS, both of which provide a specific benefit to trademark holders. Specifically, evaluation, whether at registration or by a validation service provider, is required on absolute grounds AND use of the mark. Substantive evaluation upon trademark registration has essentially three requirements: (i) evaluation on absolute grounds - to ensure that the applied for mark can in fact serve as a trademark; (ii) evaluation on relative grounds - to determine if previously filed marks preclude the registration; and (iii) evaluation of use - to ensure that the applied for mark is in current use. Substantive review by Trademark Clearinghouse validation service provider shall require: (i) evaluation on absolute grounds; and (ii) evaluation of use. URS timing: In response to public comment, change the time to respond to a complaint from 20 days to 14 days , with one opportunity for an extension of seven days if there is a good faith basis for such an extension. The Board notes that the suggestion for a globally-protected marks list (GPML) was not adopted by the Board (in 2009), including for the following reasons: it is difficult to develop objective global standards for determining which marks would be included on such a GPML, such a list arguably would create new rights not based in law for those trademark holders, and it would create only marginal benefits because it would apply only to a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names. The Board recognizes that additional policy development through the GNSO could lead to further mechanisms for enhanced protection for trademarks. 2.7 Role of the Board ====================== The Board intends to approve a standard process for staff to proceed to contract execution and delegation on applications for new gTLDs where certain parameters are met. Examples of such parameters might include: (1) the application criteria were met, (2) no material exceptions to the form agreement terms, and (3) an independent confirmation that the process was followed. The Board reserves the right under exceptional circumstances to individually consider an application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would be in the best interest of the Internet community, for example, as a result of the use of an ICANN accountability mechanism. The Board approves the inclusion of a broad waiver and limitation of liability in the application terms and conditions. 2.8 Mitigating Malicious Conduct ================================ While efforts to mitigate malicious conduct will continue, the implementation work completed to date by the community and staff to address the mitigation of malicious conduct issue is sufficient to proceed to launch the first New gTLD application round. The remaining issues should not delay launch with the following specific directives incorporated: Background check: The background check should be clarified to provide detail and specificity in response to comment. The specific reference to terrorism will be removed (and the background check criteria will be revised). These clarifications regarding the background check criteria and process shall be included in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook. Orphan glue records: Current provisions in the guidebook require each applicant to describe proposed measures for management and removal of orphan glue records for names removed from the zone. This requirement should remain in place, and will be adjusted if SSAC makes a new recommendation in its report on this issue. High Security Zone (HSTLD) concept: The HSTLD concept is a voluntary concept being developed by a cross-stakeholder group including the financial services industry for use in TLDs wishing to provide services on a high-security basis. Thus, the development of the concept does not impact the launch of the gTLD application process. Any publication of this concept will be shared freely with other organizations that might be interested in development of such a concept. ICANN will not be certifying or enforcing the HSTLD concept; ICANN is supporting the development of a reference standard for industry that others may choose to use as a certification standard of their own. ICANN will not endorse or govern the program, and does not wish to be liable for issues arising from the use or non-use of the standard. 2.9 GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6 Objection Process ===================================================== The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important issue for the past three years. The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the determinations of experts regarding these issues. The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for further guidance as required. 2.10 Registry Agreement ======================== Required Notice and consent for increased or premium renewal prices: The current provision is necessary to protect registrants from predatory pricing upon renewals and the term should be retained. Limitation of liability: The limitation of liability should remain as is. The remedies for registry operator are limited but appropriate given that ICANN is a non-profit entity that cannot afford to be open to unlimited liability. Collection of variable transaction fee from registries if registrars decline to pay ICANN directly: The provision for the pass-through of fees is necessary to ensure that ICANN receives adequate funding in the event that ICANN accredited registrars (as a group) fail to approve the variable accreditation fees and should remain in the agreement. Searchable Whois: Refer to the Board Data Consumer Protection Working Group to study issues and provide information to the Board relating to access and privacy to develop recommendations for possible inclusion in the forthcoming version of the applicant guidebook. Indemnification of ICANN: The indemnification right should remain. ICANN staff has invited the Registry Stakeholder Group to propose language more precisely defining the exceptions to registry operator's indemnification obligations for inclusion in the next version of the Draft Registry Agreement, and such a proposal should be considered for inclusion if received in a timely fashion. 2.11 Vertical Integration ========================= The Board will send a letter to the GNSO requesting that the GNSO send to the Board, by no later than 8 October 2010, a letter (a) indicating that no consensus on vertical integration issues has been reached to date, or (b) indicating its documented consensus position. If no response is received by 8 October 2010, then the Board will deem lack of consensus and make determinations around these issues as necessary. At the time a policy conclusion is reached by the GNSO, it can be included in the applicant guidebook for future application rounds. 3. Data and Consumer Protection Working Group ============================================= Whereas, the Board asked the Board Governance Committee (BGC) to make recommendations to the Board regarding establishment and membership of a working group to address data and consumer protection issues (DCP-WG). Whereas the BGC has recommended the establishment and membership of the DCP-WG. Resolved (2010.09.25.04), the Board hereby establishes the DCP-WG, with its membership as follows: Harald Alvestrand, Dennis Jennings (Chair), Mike Silber, Bruce Tonkin, and Ram Mohan (non-voting member). 4. Board Global Relationships Committee ======================================== Whereas, the Board asked the Board Governance Committee (BGC) to make recommendations to the Board regarding the membership of a Board Global Relationships Committee (BGRC). Whereas the BGC has recommend the membership of the BGRC. Resolved (2010.09.25.05), the Board hereby sets the membership for the BGRC as follows: Peter Dengate-Thrush (chair), George Sadowsky, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Katim Touray, Kuo-Wei Wu, Vanda Scartezini (non-voting member). 5. Nominating Committee Chair ============================== Whereas the Board Governance Committee is tasked each year with recommending to the Board a candidate to serve as the Nominating Committee ("NomCom") Chair. Whereas the BGC called for expressions of interest from all who would be interested in serving as the 2010-2011 NomCom Chair. Whereas the BGC considered and discussed all legitimate expressions of interest. Whereas the BGC recommends that the Board appoint Adam Peake as the 2010-2011 NomCom Chair. Resolved (2010.09.25.06), that Adam Peake is appointed as Chair of the 2010-2011 NomCom, to serve until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2011, or until the Chair's earlier resignation, removal, or other disqualification from service. 6. March 2011 International Public Meeting =========================================== Whereas, the BFC reviewed the budget for the North America ICANN meeting, compared it to prior meeting budgets, and recommend that the Board approve the budget not to exceed $1.941 million. Resolved (2010.09.25.07), the Board approves San Francisco, California as the location of the ICANN 2011 North America Meeting to be held from 13-18 March 2011, with a budget not to exceed US$1.941M. 7. Appointment of Akram Atallah as Chief Operating Officer ============================================================= Whereas, the attraction and retention of high calibre staff is essential to ICANN's operations and ICANN desires to ensure competitive compensation for staff. Whereas, Akram Atallah has been identified through a vigorous global search and senior management agrees that he is the right candidate to fill the role of Chief Operating Officer. Whereas, independent market data provided by the outside compensation consultants indicates that the base compensation for a Chief Operating Officer would fall between [redacted] at the 50th percentile and [redacted] at the 75th percentile. Whereas, independent market data provided by the outside compensation consultants indicates that the overall compensation for a Chief Operating Officer would fall between [redacted] at the 50th percentile and [redacted] at the 75th percentile. [redacted] Whereas, the Compensation Committee has recommended that the Board appoint Akram Atallah as the Chief Operating Officer and approve the suggested compensation package. Resolved (2010.09.25.08), the Board hereby appoints Akram Atallah as an Officer of the Company in the position of Chief Operating Officer effective 20 September 2010. Resolved (2010.09.25.09), the Board authorizes a starting compensation package for Akram Atallah to consist of: (i) a base salary of $350,000 USD per year; (ii) a bonus opportunity of 30% of base salary per year to be paid in a manner consistent with other U.S. based staff and in accordance with the company's bonus program; and (iii) the standard benefit programs made available to all other regular full time U.S. based staff.

1 0

Policy Staff Retreat and community calls October 4-8 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

Dear All, We just wanted to let you know that the policy staff will be in an offsite meeting during the week of October 4 - 8 2010. Teleconferencing and some Secretariat services will be available but other staff support will not. However, there will be full Staff support for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 7 October at 15:00 UTC. Please let us know what other essential staff support might be needed during this period. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Continuing to Move New gTLDs Forward
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26sep10-en.htm Continuing to Move New gTLDs Forward 26 September 2010 The ICANN Board met in Trondheim Norway on 24-25 September, focusing specifically on new gTLD issues. As ICANN completes preparations for expansion of the top-level domain space, the Board is working to ensure that key issues (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation. The expansion of the top level domain space is intended to promote competition and consumer choice, and the work this week will ensure an effective application and evaluation process with safeguards to mitigate costs and risks. The detailed Board discussion was guided by recent community input and provided direction in the implementation of trademark protections, the new registry agreement terms, measures to mitigate malicious conduct, and ensuring root zone stability. The resolutions http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm indicate that many important issues have been addressed, including trademark protection, morality and public order, and vertical integration. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush indicated that "The board made considerable progress on the remaining issues and has asked staff to prepare additional working papers and a modified applicant guidebook for public review prior to the upcoming ICANN meeting in Cartagena in December 2010. The meeting results represent a key milestone after years of work by the ICANN community as we prepare for community discussion and debate in Cartagena." Reviewing the Board direction, President and CEO Rod Beckstrom stated, "ICANN is prepared to implement this important new offering to increase consumer choice and to promote competition." Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Community Working Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm Public Comment: Community Working Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6 22 September 2010 The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on GNSO Recommendation 6 has published its Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation No. 6. The Report describes various recommendations that were supported by a consensus of CWG members to improve the implementation plan for Recommendation No. 6. This Report [PDF, 1.06 MB] (CWG Report) is now posted for public comment. The public comment period ends on 22 October 2010. Background: ICANN is in the implementation planning stage of defining the processes for adding new generic top - level domain name to the Domain Name System. The policy recommendations to guide the introduction of new gTLDs were created by the GNSO over a two year effort. Among these GNSO policy recommendations is Recommendation 6, which states that: Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. A cross-community effort involving members of the GAC, GNSO, and the At Large Community has resulted in the publication of the CWG Report that addresses concerns that have surfaced from the ICANN Community regarding the proposed implementation of Rec6. This Report describes the results of this bottom-up process, and includes recommendations proposed by the CWG for improving the implementation plan proposed in the Draft Applicant Guidebook-v4 related to procedures for addressing objectionable strings, while protecting internationally recognized freedom of expression rights. This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any of the proposed recommendations that are described the Report. The Report will be posted for a public comment period that closes on 22 October 2010. Comments can be sent to cwg-report-rec6(a)icann.org and reviewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/cwg-report-rec6/. Additional Information: 1. To review the proposed implementation plan for Recommendation 6 in the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 4, please refer to Module 3: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm 2. For information on the GAC's concerns regarding Recommendation 6, please refer to the letter dated 4 August 2010: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gac-to-dengate-thrush-04aug10-en.pdf [PDF, 235 KB] 3. The ALAC Statement on Morality and Public Order, 4 March 2009 is posted at: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf [PDF, 344 KB] Staff responsible: Margie Milam Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Vertical Integration
by Adrian Kinderis Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

It looks like the Board punted this... yet again. http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.11 Can't we just send them the letter already? This was my idea from the start. Call the WG closed, mark the interim report final and let's move on. Adrian Kinderis

1 0