January 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Alternate Motion on JAS
by Liz Gasster Jan. 7, 2011

Jan. 7, 2011

Forwarding the attached motion from Jeff Neuman: From: owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 6:26 PM To: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-chairs] Alternate Motion on JAS All, I am going on vacation, but I want to make sure that I do not miss the deadline to introduce motions for the January 13th Meeting. So I would like to introduce this Motion as a completely new alternate motion. Can I ask as a favor that unless you hear otherwise, can you please post this by the motion deadline? I have attached a redlined version of my motion to the version proposed by Rafik for those on the Council that want to see what was done. Thanks! 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.

6 9

Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT): Final Recommendations
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 4, 2011

Jan. 4, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31dec10-en.htm Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT): Final Recommendations 31 December 2010 As prescribed by the Affirmation of Commitments, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) now issues its final recommendations [PDF, 2.54 MB] for public comment. These recommendations were developed on the basis of the draft proposed recommendations submitted for public comment in November 2010 and include the input received via the comment periods, email mechanisms and during ICANN meetings (38 and 39). Interviews, fact-finding and analysis led by the ATRT as well the Berkman Center's Final Report [PDF, 3.92 MB], produced by the selected external consultant - Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University - constitute bedrocks of these final recommendations which are now submitted to the ICANN community for comments. Under the AoC, resulting recommendations will be submitted for public comment and the Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. The community is now invited to participate in this comment forum by 14 February 2011 and to provide input on the final report via: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201102-en.htm#atrt-fi…. Translations of the report will be provided. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Bad back
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 4, 2011

Jan. 4, 2011

Hi everyone. I'm afraid my back has given up on me and I'm stuck in bed for the next couple of days. I won't have frequent access to email. Therefore please do not be surprised if I don't respond to emails in a timely manner. Everything should be back to normal by the end of the week. Thanks. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Registry Liaison Group NBT

1 0

Document and motion deadline Wednesday 5 January for Council meeting on 13 January 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 3, 2011

Jan. 3, 2011

Dear Council members, Happy New Year! Reminder: all documents and motions to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 January 2011 at 20:00 UTC should be sent to the Council mailing list not later than Wednesday, 5 January 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

FW: [council] First steps towards prioritization
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 3, 2011

Jan. 3, 2011

Resend in plain text: From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: jeudi 30 décembre 2010 16:18 To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] First steps towards prioritization Councillors, During our Cartagena wrap-up meeting, the Council requested that the Chairs take a stab at prioritizing our ongoing projects. The Council Leaders have been working on this since then with a view to first of all identifying those projects that have either been ongoing for the longest time or do not seem to be very active. Our first review has made it clear that the Travel DT is no longer active and Olga, the Chair of the group, does not object to it being closed for now (and reopened at a later date if required). Closing the Travel DT is therefore the first executive decision we are making. It will be removed from the Pending Projects list. If anyone objects, please say so by COB Tuesday Jan 4. Next is the VI WG. The Council passed a resolution in Cartagena to end the WG. I am asking Staff to remove it from the PP list as of now. Next is the Geo Regions WG. Olga is also Chair of this group and reports that there is still ongoing activity. I have therefore asked Staff to update the PP list with Olga's report and to keep this WG on the active list. Last project on this initial review is the Fast Flux WG. This has seen no Council action since 2009. In order to close this completely, the best course of action seems to be to transfer what remains to the RAP group. I am therefore making a motion in this regard. Please find the motion attached and reprinted below. A second would be appreciated. Once this initial effort at prioritization is concluded, the Council Leaders will then look at trying to rank the remaining active projects and we will come back to the Council with some proposals then. Thanks, Stéphane The motion: 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 (see http://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 #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: Integrate this recommendation into the Registration Abuse Policies WG Recommendation on Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 recommending the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. b) Adopted 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 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; . Proposed Implementation: ICANN staff is requested to organize a workshop at an ICANN meeting in 2011 (e.g. Include it as a topic of the DNS Abuse Forum) to discuss this issue in further detail with the ICANN Community. ICANN Staff is expected to report back to the GNSO Council on the outcome of the workshop and any possible follow up / next steps that result from such a meeting. 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 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: Ensure that any invitations for above proposed workshop and any other activities that result from any of the activities related to the fast flux recommendations are circulated as wide as possible. f) Adopted 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 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.

1 0