January 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Council/Chair interaction
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

Councillors, I wanted to inform you that I have suggested to your group Chairs that a mailing list be created to link the C and SG leadership with the Council leadership. Their response was very much in favour, so a mailing list will be set up for the Council leaders (Chair and VC) and the group leaders (Chair and VC). The idea is to improve informal communications between the group leadership and the Council. We are also thinking about a regular conf call at some point, but this is not set in stone yet. Thanks, Stéphane

2 2

Motion and document deadlines added to GNSO calendar
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

Councillors, FYI, following a suggestion from Jeff on our last Council Leaders' call, we have looked at adding the deadline for submitting motions and documents on our master calendar. The idea is, as the meetings tend to roll into each other and it's easy to loose sight of deadlines, to give us better clarity about when motions need to be submitted. Glen has implemented this idea and you can see the result on the calendar page (http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#jan) next deadline is shown on Jan 29. I hope this is useful to everyone. Thanks, Stéphane P.S.: There was talk in Cartagena of lengthening motion deadlines before a Public Council meeting. Is there still an interest in looking at this?

3 4

GAC/Board meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

Councillors, FYI, what I am hearing is that the joint meeting between the GAC and the Board on new gTLDs will be held in Brussels at the end of February. It has been suggested that SO and AC Chairs would be invited, at their own expense. I have asked what we would be there to do: 1. Would we be expected just to listen? 2. Would we be asked to give a message from our respective SOs and ACs? 3. We would be active participants throughout the meeting? I have not had a response yet (I don't think anyone really knows at this stage). I did want to give you a heads-up on this now though. If it's option 2, we will be pushed for time to come up with a GNSO approved message to the GAC and the Board. So it's something I would ask you to take back to your respective groups now, in order to start discussion on. More on this as I get it. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting - 25 Jan 2011
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-25jan11-en.htm Agenda for Board Meeting Expected duration; 3 hours 25 January 2011 1. Executive Session of the Board 2. Consent Agenda ================= a. Approval of Minutes of 8 December 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting b. Approval of Minutes of 10 December 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting c. Approval of Minutes of 10 December 2010 ICANN Organizational Board Meeting d. Approval of Revised Charter of the Finance Committee e. Approval of Proposed Bylaws Amendments Changing Term Ending Dates for Supporting Organization and At-Large Selected Board Members f. From SSAC –Appointment of SSAC Chair g. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Member - Christophe Reverd h. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Member & Vice-Chair – Ray Plzak i. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Chair – Steve Crocker j. Approval to Track Global Policy Process for IPv4 Post-Exhaustion Approval of RSSAC Review Implementation Plan k. Approval of Proposed Bylaws Amendment to Create a Non-Voting Chair-Elect to the Nominating Committee l. Approval of Telnic RSEP request for release of numeric-only strings except for single-character labels m. Approval of VeriSign RSEP request (for .NAME) for release of numeric-only strings and numeric strings with hyphens n. Thanks to the 2010 Nominating Committee o. Approval of Redelegation of the .BF domain representing Burkina Faso p. Approval of Redelegation of the .CD domain representing the Democratic Republic of Congo q. Approval of Redelegation of the .SY domain representing the Syrian Arab Republic r. Approval of Delegation of the . 한국 ("Hanguk") domain representing the Republic of Korea in Korean s. Approval of Delegation of the . 新加坡 ("Singapore") domain, and the .சிங்கப்பூர் ("Singapore") domain, representing Singapore in Chinese and Tamil t. Approval of Delegation of the . سورية ("Sourya") domain representing the Syrian Arab Republic in Arabic u. Approval of Delegation of the seven top-level domains representing India in various languages Main Agenda – 2 hours 20 minutes ================================ 3. CEO’s Report 4. 2011-2014 Strategic Plan 5. Rationale documents a. Format b. Economic Studies c. Vertical Integration 6. Board/GAC Consultations a. Process Document b. New gTLDs c. ICM 7. New gTLDs a. Rec6 Working Group Recommendations b. Update on Public Comments on the Guidebook 8. Report on AOC Reviews including ATRT Recommendations – Next Steps 9. From the Structural Improvements Committee – Update on Approval of Posting for Public Comment Revised/Improved New GNSO Constituency Recognition Process Proposed by SIC 10. Update on recruitment for Ombudsman and interim arrangements 11. Any Other Business

1 0

PPSC Timeline of work of PDP WT
by Neuman, Jeff Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

All, In accordance with the resolution passed by the GNSO Council in Cartagena, please find enclosed a proposed timeline of milestones to completing the work of the PDP-WT/PPSC on improvements to the PDP. It is an extremely aggressive timeline with the amount of work ahead of us and may require two 1.5 hour calls per week for several weeks to get the work done. We will do our best and ask that your constituencies/SGs support our efforts when it comes to the next public comment period and in encouraging strong participation by your PDP WT members. On a related note, I have asked J Scott Evans, the co-chair of the PPSC to chair all of the sessions of the PPSC involving the PDP-WT to avoid any perceptions of a conflict. I will be available to the PPSC as a resource to them, but not as an active voting member of the PPSC when discussing those matters. I will need to ask someone from the RySG to participate in the PPSC since our alternate member is no longer an active participant of the PPSC. Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns or comments. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

Action items from yesterday's meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 18, 2011

Jan. 18, 2011

There are a few action items following yesterday's Council meeting. I have asked Staff to update the pending project list in the following way: - delete the travel drafting team. - delete the VI WG. - delete the FF item. On the rec6 (agenda item 5), we agreed that we would send a compilation of comments to the Board. Please ask your respective groups to send any comments they may wish to make by COB Monday Jan 24. On the consumer choice item (item 6), considering the resource issue that was identified, we agreed that Rosemary would liaise with Bruce and that we would then consider whether we should send a letter to the Board saying the GNSO does not have the resources to undertake this work. Rosemary has already reached out to Bruce. Rosemary, can I ask when you expect to get back to Council with an update? On agenda item 8.3, the Standing Committee for the 2 GNSO improvements Steering Committees, who would like to volunteer? On JAS, the Council Leadership suggests that our ALAC Liaison Alan Greenberg liaise with his group to see if our charter is acceptable to them. Would that be OK Alan? Thanks, Stéphane

3 4

Motion and Document Deadline - Wednesday 26 January 2011 for Council meeting on 3 February 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 15, 2011

Jan. 15, 2011

Dear Council Members, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 3 February 2011 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 26 January 2011. Please see the calendar page for due dates for the rest of the year: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Please note that the pending project list is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf This will be updated before the Council meeting on 3 February 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 13 January
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Dear All, Before the official minutes, the following motions were passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 13 January 2011. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS) Motion Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.12.10 which reiterated its 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states: the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support. Resolved: 1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following limited objectives: a) Propose criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should seek out expert advice in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement. b) Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application for special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should be offered; c) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from registry service providers. d) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from other top-level domain consultants, translators, and technicians, in the application for, and administration of, a new top-level domain e) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages. 2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work. 3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures. 4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC. Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. "WHEREAS, a motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvement to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement has been submitted and seconded; (8 December motions https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions) WHEREAS, that motion called for the GNSO Council to accept the final report to approve the form of the Registrant Rights andResponsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the final report, to recommend that staff commence the consultation process withRegistrars to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the Web sites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA, and to recommend that staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the final report, to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the high and medium priority topics described in the final report; WHEREAS, some GNSO Councillors have expressed the view that further work is necessary on the portion of that motion relating to the process specified as Process A in the final report to develop a new form of RAA; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council does not wish for such work to delay progress on the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter referenced above; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement be amended as set out below: WHEREAS, on 4 March, 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 registrar accreditation agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a consultative process initiated by ICANN; WHEREAS, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of theAt-Large community to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA. Specifically, to draft a charter identifying Registrant Rights and Responsibilities; WHEREAS, on 18 October 2010 the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team published its final report describing specific recommendations and proposals for improvements to the RAA; (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o…) WHEREAS, the GNSO Council has reviewed the final report and desires to approve some of the recommendations and proposals contained therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in the final report for improvements to the RAA; (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o…) RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the final responsibilities charters as described in Annex D of the final report; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that the staff commence the consultation process with registrars in the RAA to finalize the registrant rights and responsibilities charter for posting on the Web sites on specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA. Motion on the implementation of the Fast Flux recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council on 3 September 2009 Whereas the Fast Flux PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 13 August 2009; Whereas the Fast Flux PDP Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing policy, but did develop several other recommendations that were adopted by the Council on 3 September 2009 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-03sep09.htm) Whereas the GNSO Council intended to create a drafting team to develop a plan with a set of priorities and schedule to address the adopted recommendations for review and consideration by the GNSO Council; Whereas due to workload and other priorities such a drafting team was never created; Whereas the Council tasked the Council leadership at the wrap up meeting at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena to put forward proposals to suggest which projects should be continued and discontinued; Whereas the Council leadership has reviewed the Fast Flux Recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council, also in light of the recent recommendations made by the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group; Whereas the Council leadership has recommended the approach outlined below to the GNSO Council for consideration as an acceptable way of implementing the adopted recommendations and therewith closing the project; RESOLVED, The Council accepts the approach identified below for the adopted recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-03sep09.htm) and instructs the ICANN Staff to implement these recommendations as set forth below: a) Adopted recommendation Fast-Flux Working Group (FFWG) #1: To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux * Proposed implementation: This recommendation is encompassed by the Registration Abuse Policies WG (RAPWG) Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 which recommends the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. b) Adopted FFWG recommendation #2: The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux; * Implementation completed as it was addressed by the RAP WG in its final report (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) c) Adopted FFWG recommendation #3: To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions; * The RAPWG Final Report and the Fast-Flux Working Group Final Report indicated that fast-flux is generally a domain use issue and not a domain registration issue, and as such falls outside the purview of the GNSO and ICANN. Therefore no further action is recommended*. d) Adopted recommendation #4: To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a "best practices facilitator" within the community; * Proposed Implementation: Integrate this recommendation into the RAP WG Recommendation on "Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices" which recommends that the "GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support structured, funded mechanisms for the collection and maintenance of best practices." e) Adopted FFWG recommendation 5: To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts; * Proposed Implementation: It is assumed that if the Registration Abuse Policies WG's (RAPWG) Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 is adopted by the Council, that the subsequent effort will be open to participation by stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community. f) Adopted FFWG recommendation #6: To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report. * Proposed Implementation: No action needed at this point, but should be included if any future PDPs are initiated on this subject. g) Adopted FFWG recommendation #6: To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010. * Proposed Implementation: The Council deems this work to be completed in conjunction with the above-proposed implementation proposals. RESOLVED FURTHER The Council now considers the work of the Fast Flux WG complete. As such, the "Fast Flux Council Follow-up" action item is deemed closed and will be deleted from the Pending Project List. Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm) WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency; WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010; WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10de… and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 1 January 2011 ; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period. RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 GNSO Council teleconference 13 January, 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 13 January, 2011 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110113-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan Happy Listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: [council] Definitions and measures of competition , consumer trust, and consumer choice
by Rosemary Sinclair Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Hi Bruce I wonder if you would have time for a chat by phone next Tuesday (my preference.....)? I'm out of Sydney until Monday evening..... I'd like to explore some feedback from the GNSO Council call this morning about the resource implications of the CCC work and what the options might be? Let me know what time works for you and I'll work around that! Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 M: +61 413734490 Email: rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au <mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au> Skype: rasinclair Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, 14 January 2011 10:15 AM To: Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [!! SPAM] SPAM-LOW: RE: [council] Definitions and measures of competition , consumer trust, and consumer choice Got it. Thanks Bruce. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Definitions and measures of competition , > consumer trust, and consumer choice > From: "Bruce Tonkin" > Date: Thu, January 13, 2011 2:57 pm > To: "Tim Ruiz" > Cc: > > Hello Tim, > > > >> Could you provide the source for the conclusions you make below, or are > they your own? > > Purely my own quick thoughts - none of them need to be accepted in any way :-) > > > > >> Regarding the > latter, at some point .com may be less 20% but if a large portion of > other gTLD registrations are only defensive and mostly point to .coms, > is that a good sign of competition? > > No. > > >> Finally, I'm not sure it is a good idea for the regulator's own criteria > and evaluation to be the only measure of the effectiveness of its > regulations. So we should consider third party involvement as well. > > Agreed. But given we as a community are initiating a project - lets at least have some shared measures of our own. Any independent review may wish to look at other aspects - but we at least need our own measures to manage our own projects. > > Regards, > Bruce

1 0