October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: ICANN Dakar Meeting: Arrival to Dakar
by Adrian Kinderis 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

That sounds easy peasy...????? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:09 PM To: ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: FW: ICANN Dakar Meeting: Arrival to Dakar Dear All, Below is what to expect upon your arrival to Dakar. 1) Upon landing, please see the person holding an "ICANN 42 Dakar" sign, where they will re-direct you to go to a separate bus from the rest of the group. [cid:image001.png@01CC8DD5.4796D700] [cid:image002.png@01CC8DD5.4796D700] 2) The bus will then take you to a separate holding facility where you will be processed for your passport, visa, and etc. [cid:image003.png@01CC8DD5.4796D700] 3) After you have been processed, you will then need to complete a form indicating which hotel the shuttle bus will drop you off. [cid:image004.png@01CC8DD5.4796D700] 4) If you brought any luggage, they will escort you back to the main airport where you will collect your luggage. [cid:image005.png@01CC8DD5.4796D700] 5) After you've collected your luggage, you will then be escorted to your shuttle bus to take you to your hotel. [cid:image006.png@01CC8DD5.4796D700] Safe travels!! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN FY11 Financials - Open, Transparent and CLEAN!
by Glen de Saint Géry 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-13oct11-en.htm ICANN FY11 Financials - Open, Transparent and CLEAN! 13 October 2011 For the 12th straight year, ICANN has received an unqualified "clean" opinion from the independent auditors, Moss Adams LLP. We have posted the results<http://www.icann.org/en/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun11-en.pdf> [PDF, 821 KB] and invite you to take a transparent peek into our audited FY11 financials. "Unqualified" means that the auditors have not identified any matter that would require them to alter the extent of the "clean" opinion they are giving on ICANN's financial statements. ANNOUNCEMENT Title: Audited Financial Statements Posted ICANN's FY11 Audited Financials are now posted<http://www.icann.org/en/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun11-en.pdf> [PDF, 821 KB] and are available for review by the community. In accordance with Article XVI of ICANN's by-laws, the audited financial statements are to be posted by the end of October. For the 12th straight year, ICANN has received an unqualified "clean" opinion from ICANN's independent auditors, Moss Adams LLP, the 11th largest accounting firm in the United States. The Community is invited to review ICANN's audited financials and to provide commentaries and/or questions. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument
by Glen de Saint Géry 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17oct11-en.htm RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/rysg-proposal-cof-17oct11-en.htm> Open Date: 17 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:rysg-proposal-cof@icann.org> Close Date: 2 December 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/rysg-proposal-cof/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose ICANN received from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) a proposal for Establishment of a Continued Operations Fund (COF). This proposal is accompanied by an addendum (Proposed Continuing Operations Instrument) produced by the Afilias and PIR, supported by some other registries, registry applicants and other interested parties. · The RySG proposal can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-21jul11-en.pdf[P…, 71 KB] · The Addendum can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-addendum-01sep11… [PDF, 119 KB] The RySG proposal offers an alternative approach to the existing Continuing Operations Instrument that is part of the New gTLD Program. The current model proposed by ICANN is outlined in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular see Question 50 of applicant questions evaluation criteria attachment and the spec 8 of the Registry Agreement. Respondents to the public comment that wish to learn more about this topic are also encouraged to read the gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clea… [PDF, 747 KB]) and the recently posted Emergency Back-End Registry Operator Request for Information (EBERO RFI): http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-14sep11-en.htm Essentially, the existing Continuing Operations Instrument requires each new gTLD to obtain a letter of credit that will pay for the maintenance of five critical registry functions in the event of a registry failure. The proposed Continuing Operations Fund mechanism is essentially an insurance pool where each registry contributes to a fund - the contribution to a pooled risk fund would be less than the letter of credit (perhaps significantly less). Here are some questions that public comment responders to be considered regarding the RySG alternative proposal as well as the existing continuing instrument model offered by ICANN. To be most effective, comments should identify the question addressed, or identify if a separate issue is addressed. 1. Considering ICANN's Mission, what is the appropriate role for ICANN to create a fund or act as an insurer? Under which circumstances? o Can the same end be accomplished through a third party? o Will an insurance company underwrite this? 2. The current COI model outlined on the Applicant Guidebook (see: http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/agb) is designed to provide some safeguards regardless of the number of gTLD registries that fail. For the existing COI model: o There will be an incentive to underestimate the projected size of the new registry, and therefore lower the cost of the COI to below what it should be to protect registrants. How could this be addressed? For the COF model: o Who should determine how much reserve must be set aside? o What criteria should be used to ensure sufficient funding and a mechanism to provide registrant protections? 3. In the estimates shown in the addendum (Proposed Continuity Operations Instrument), what are the assumptions can be made in creating the basis for the proposed fund? 4. How should the both the existing COI model and the newly proposed COF model ensure that it appropriately meets the needs of multiple registries sizes from small to large? 5. Will the allocation of costs need to be adjusted over time if new registries enter the pool after the target balance is achieved? How can this account for some level of predictability and fairness for all registries? 6. What appropriate level of internal resources should ICANN have for collections, tracking of deposits and outlays from the fund? 7. What are the foreseeable challenges to move funds in timely manner to various parties as required responding to emergency situations? Section II: Background This assurance of continuing operations through some mechanism - whether it is the current continuity operations instrument or the newly proposed continuing operations fund - is an important issue because it provides a mechanism to protect registrants in the event of a registry failure. ICANN's main goal is a registrant protection through the implementation of a transition process that occurs in a secure, stable and reliable manner, minimizing impact not only to gTLD registrants, but also to gTLD users. This process should provide transparency to all parties involved in the transition. The continuity operations instrument provides the one fully performed and in place registrant protection mechanism before the TLD is delegated. Additional important background information is furnished in the gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clea…, 747 KB]). Commenters should read that. A mechanism similar to the proposed continuing operations fund was considered at one time. Section III: Document and Resource Links · New gTLD Registry Agreement (see spec 8): http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agreement-specs-clean-19sep11-en.p… [PDF, 4.5 MB] · Module 2 of the Applicant Guidebook: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-questions-criteria-clea… [PDF, 725 KB] and http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-procedures-clean-19sep1… [PDF, 919 KB] · gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clea… [PDF, 747 KB] · New gTLD Program: http://newgtlds.icann.org/ Section IV: Additional Information There will be a session during the upcoming ICANN Dakar Meeting<http://dakar42.icann.org/> to explain the proposal and receive additional community feedback. The session will be chaired by representatives from the RySG. This session will have remote participation for the people not able to attend in person. If you are interested in learning more and have questions, please see here<http://dakar42.icann.org/node/27219> the details. Staff Contact: Karla Valente Email: karla.valente(a)icann.org<mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20RySG%20Alternative%20Proposal%20for%20Continuity%20Operations%20Instrument%20public%20comment%20period> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies Participation in the New gTLD Program
by Glen de Saint Géry 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13oct11-en.htm Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies Participation in the New gTLD Program Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/jas-final-report-13oct11-en.htm> Open Date: 13 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:jas-final-report@icann.org> Close Date: 16 December 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/jas-final-report/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose A message from the JAS WG: Public comment is requested concerning the Joint Applicant Support Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 503 KB] which deals with a very important issue: How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program? Comments will be received until December 16 2011. The Final Report is the last step of the work done by the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). The group is represented by ICANN community members from around the world that have been working together on this initiative since April 2010. The Report offers recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries under the New gTLD Program. The Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by ALAC and the GNSO, the chartering organizations. Translations of the Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 503 KB]: · Español<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-es.pdf> [PDF, 513 KB] · Français<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-fr.pdf> [PDF, 570 KB] Section II: Background Below are some basic aspects of this work. This proposal is currently under consideration by ICANN community, Board and Staff. A Program is under development and further details will be made available on ICANN's website to the general public. The JAS WG was formed following a Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm> from ICANN Board of Directors in Nairobi, on March 2010 that asked ICANN's stakeholder community "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." 1. What is this all about? What is a Final Report? The Final Report is a document produced by the JAS WG that offers recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries. The Final Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by the GNSO and ALAC, the chartering organizations. This initiative is related to the New gTLD Program, which in the near future will allow entities from around the world to apply for a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD). The applicants passing the evaluation process will sign a contract with ICANN and run a Registry. 2. Who is being considered to receive support? Once the new gTLD applicant interested in receiving support has demonstrated "service to the public interest," "financial capabilities and need," one or more of the following characteristics apply: o Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities; o Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited; o Operation in a developing economy in a manner that provides genuine local social benefit; o Advocated by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations' social service mission(s); and o Operation by a local entrepreneur(s), providing demonstrable social benefit in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult. The Final Report also recommends that it instead use the internationally agreed-upon UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs list: o Least Developed Countries: category 199; o Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432; o Small Island Developing States: category 722; o Indigenous Peoples, as described in Article 1 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.All applicants will be expected give a self-declaration that they are eligible to receive support under these criteria. 3. Who does NOT qualify for support? According to the JAS WG, the application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: o An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as a "dot-brand"); o A governmental or para-statal institution; o A gTLD string that is a geographic name or is based on one; o Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are bankrupt or under bankruptcy protection; o Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are the subject of litigation or criminal investigation; o Incapable of meeting any of the Applicant Guidebook's due diligence procedures. 4. Who benefits from this? Why is it important? We all benefit from this initiative. The Internet belongs to all as well as the responsibility to look into effective ways to reduce the Digital Divide, in this particular case, by delivering a sustainable and critical support for applicants from developing economies and looking for a solution not only at the application phase but also through to the initial years of these new Registry operators. It is important because the Internet is a virtual real estate that belongs to everyone. Entities from around the world should be able to increase their participation in the top-level expansion. The Working Group also stresses it is important not only to increase participation from developing economies, but also to increase the likelihood of success by these new participants that will be delivering Domain Name Services (DNS). The current New gTLD Program, as designed, has an evaluation (and several other fees) that are considered high for a significant number of potential participants from around the world. Besides the issue of high fees, the program is in English only and has an evaluation process with criteria and requirements that are quite complex to navigate. 5. What kind of assistance in being considered? The Final Report proposes a full array of financial and non-financial support to be offered to applicants that meet the established criteria. The support should be available in the first and all subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. Currently ICANN has launched an online work space dedicated to connect potential applicants from developing regions who wish to apply for a New gTLD in their community with organizations who wish to offer either financial or non-financial assistance. See details on how this space works here:http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support 6. Who is part of this Working Group? The JAS WG is comprised of highly respected and experienced volunteers from the Supporting Organization and the Advisory Committee. This all-volunteer group teleconferences twice each week, and works through a Wiki and mailing lists. These active contributors are located in Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, North America and the Caribbean. Section III: Document and Resource Links Relevant Resolutions and previous Public Comment Forum: · Information about the New gTLD Program<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> · http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20 · http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.2 · http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct10-en.htm · http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201004 · First Milestone Report Public Forum<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201012-en.htm#jas-mil…> · http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/second-milestone-report-10jun11-en.h… Archive regarding the WG activities: · E-mail: soac-newgtldapsup-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-newgtldapsup-wg@icann.org> · Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+… Section IV: Additional Information The JAS WG will hold a session during the upcoming ICANN Dakar Meeting<http://dakar42.icann.org/full-schedule> to both explain the Final Report and receive additional community feedback. This session will have remote participation for the people not able to attend in person. The JAS WG recently held a webinar about the Final Report. The webinar has been recorded and is available in English, French and Spanish. See recordings here<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep>. Staff Contact: Karla Valente Email: karla.valente(a)icann.org<mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Work%20Continues%20to%20Increase%20Developing%20Economies%20Participation%20in%20the%20New%20gTLD%20Program%20public%20comment%20period> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Framework of Interpretation Working Group - Interim Report
by Glen de Saint Géry 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm Framework of Interpretation Working Group - Interim Report Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/foiwg-interim-report-12oct11-en.htm> Open Date: 12 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:foiwg-interim-report@icann.org> Close Date: 1 December 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/foiwg-interim-report/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) is seeking public comment on Interim Report on the first topic it has addressed: obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement Working Group (DRDWG) identified the following issues with the topic of "consent": "The Interpretation of consent (communication that the transfer is agreed), by IANA's own admission, is highly variable depending on a number of factors including culture and the immediate physical security of the ccTLD manager. This includes interpreting a failure to reply to an IANA email as consent in certain cases of re-delegations where the current manager has stated he does not support the request." The FOIWG identified the applicable polices and procedure statements and analysed all past cases of ccTLD re-delegations researching the stated consent in each instance. Based on this analysis the FOIWG identified the issues in the context of the applicable policies. These issues were further analysed to identify any issues arising from this analysis. Based on this analysis the FOIWG developed draft recommendations. To be most helpful input and feed-back from the community is sought with respect to the following questions: 1. Is the approach used by the FOIWG satisfactory? 2. Is the documentation that was analyzed to identify issues comprehensive? 3. Do the issues identified by the FOIWG for this topic capture the major problems associated with the topic? If not, what is missing? 4. Are the proposed guidelines effective solutions to the issues that were identified? 5. Are the recommendations effective in addressing the concerns raised in the final report of the DRDWG regarding this topic? Section II: Background The FOIWG was created by the ccNSO Council following the recommendations of the Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group (DRDWG): Recommendation 2: Delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs The DRDWG recommends that, as a first step, the ccNSO Council undertakes the development of a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretations of the current policies, guidelines and procedures relating to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. The results of the use of such a Framework of Interpretation should be formally monitored and evaluated by the ccNSO Council after a pre-determined period. If the results of this evaluation indicate that the Framework of Interpretation failed to provide logical and predictable outcomes in ICANN decision making, the ccNSO Council should then launch PDPs on the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. The charter of the FOIWG was adopted by the ccNSO Council at its meeting on 16 March 2011 and appointed as its chair Keith Davidson of .NZ (former Chair of the DRDWG). In June 2011 the charter was updated to reflect the participation of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The charter and the list of participants of the working group can be found at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm) The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current policies and guidelines pertaining to the delegation and redelegation of ccTLD's. The scope of the FOIWG also clearly specifies that: · Any proposal to amend, update or change the Policy Statements is outside the scope of the FOIWG. · The IANA functions contract between the US Government and ICANN, including any contract implementation issues or procedures relating to it, are outside the scope of the FOIWG. Section III: Document and Resource Links Documents posted for comment: The Interim Report is posted here: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/interim-report-consent-final-12oct11-e…, 1.63 MB] Additional Resources: Further information on the work of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group is available at:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm. Section IV: Additional Information The Interim Report addresses the first of the following topics the FOIWG identified which will be considered individually and in the order presented: · Obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests · Obtaining and documenting support for delegation and re-delegation requests from Significantly Interested Parties (sometimes referred to as Local Internet Community or LIC). · Developing recommendations for un-consented re-delegations · Developing a comprehensive glossary of the terms used for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. · Developing recommendations for IANA reports on delegation and re-delegation. Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel Email: bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Framework%20of%20Interpretation%20Working%20Group%20%E2%80%93%20Interim%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Dakar 26 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 17 Oct '11

17 Oct '11

Dear All, Please find the Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Dakar 26 October 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26oct11-en.htm Also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+October+2… This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 14:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Publi…> Coordinated Universal Time: 14:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Dakar, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, 23:00 Tokyo Thursday 27 October 01:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who will be absent. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Refer to: http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26967 14:00- 15:00 GNSO Council Public Forum. Presentations by Stakeholder and Constituency Group leaders. * gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group - David Maher * Registrar Stakeholder Group - Mason Cole * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – · Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC). – Debbie Hughes * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) – * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) - Break 15:30 Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 6 October minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12194.html> –will be approved on 24 October 2011. Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (10 minutes) Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 6(10 – PEDNR, PDP-WT, OSC, GCOT, CSG Removed, IRTP- C added) • Other activities: 10 (9 –Thick Whois added) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 –RAA Removed, RC-IOC added). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2– no change). 2.2 Open microphone Item 3: Open Council Meeting Drafting Team (15 minutes) Following the Singapore meeting, a GNSO Drafting Team was formed to work on possible enhancements to the format of the GNSO Council's Open Meetings. Today's meeting is the first since the formation of this DT. As an introduction to the meeting, the DT would like to present some of its suggested enhancements and receive feedback on them. 3.1 Update from DT (Adrian Kinderis) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Next steps 3.4 Open microphone Item 4: Amendments to RAA (15 minutes) In its ongoing work on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), and more specifically to identify potential amendments to the RAA, the Council is considering a motion to approve an amended process to develop a new form of RAA termed "process B". Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+… This motion was deferred from the October 6, 2011 meeting. 4.1 Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote 4.4 Open microphone Item 5: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (15 minutes) As part of the GNSO improvements, the PPSC's PDP WT has produced a final report on how the GNSO's policy develop process should be handled. Refer to PDP-WT Final Report This report has been put out for public comment and is now being presented to the Council for approval. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+… This motion was deferred from the October 6, 2011 meeting. 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote 5.4 Open microphone Item 6: Cross Community WG Drafting Team (15 minutes) In order to identify exactly how the GNSO should interact with, or participate in, Cross Community efforts, a drafting team has been examining how to best conduct these joint activities. The GNSO Council approved the team's charter on October 6. Today, the team is delivering its first status report. Link to report 6.1 Update from DT (Jonathan Robinson) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps 6.4 Open microphone Item 7: Geo regions WG (15 minutes) The Geo Regions WG is currently drafting its final report and plans to produce it early next year. The GNSO Council will be able to comment the report at that time. A draft document is currently the subject of a public comment forum: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/geo-regions-draft-final-report-30sep…. This is a discussion item to update the Council on this work, and also to determine if the current Council reps to the WG are able to continue in this role. The current reps are Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil. As Olga will no longer sit on the GNSO Council after the Dakar meeting, she may wish to ask the Council for another rep. 7.1 Update from Staff (Rob Hoggarth) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Rep choices 7.4 Open microphone Item 8 Thanks to outgoing Councilors Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) BREAK 18:00 - 18:30 New Council convenes Item 1. Seating of new Council 1.1 Roll call 1.2 Statements of interest Item 2 Vote for GNSO Council chair One nomination: Stéphane van Gelder Vote by show of hands Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 07:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dakar, Senegal UTC 14:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 15:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 16:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 19:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 23:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Cross TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting
by Stéphane Van Gelder 17 Oct '11

17 Oct '11

Councillors, FYI, see below the message I have just sent Patrik Faltstrom, Chair of SSAC, following one of the RAP resolves the Council approved at its last teleconference. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Objet : Cross TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting > Date : 17 octobre 2011 20:23:47 HAEC > À : Patrik Fältström <pfaltstr(a)cisco.com> > > Hi Patrik, > > At its meeting on 6 October, in follow up to the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group, the GNSO Council tasked me as Chair, with regards to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, to communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse'. > > For your information, you will find attached to this message the findings of the RAP Working Group in relation to these issues. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to discussing this with you in Dakar if required. > > Best, > > Stéphane > > > >

1 0

SCI
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 17 Oct '11

17 Oct '11

All, as I'll arrive in Dakar on Sunday night, 22 Oct, I herewith provide a short update on SCI: * The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) did not hold a meeting after the ICANN Singapore meeting and will not convene in Dakar since no issue was raised by the council or any group chartered by the council. * The SCI likes to remind the GNSO Council and the recognised Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the possibility of raising issues for consideration with the SCI. In scope of the SCI tasks are all recommendations implemented from the GNSO improvements work over the last years. * The SCI plans to ask WGs or other affected parties about their experience with the new WG procedures Looking forward to see you Sunday morning Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Travel restriction database
by Alan Greenberg 17 Oct '11

17 Oct '11

I just came across an incredibly useful website for reviewing mandatory travel passport, visa and health issues. This one is on the KLM site, although other airlines/alliances offer the same content. The all use the "Timatic" database run by IATA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timatic) http://www.klm.com/travel/ru_en/prepare_for_travel/travel_planning/travel_c… Alan

1 0

RE: [council] Re: A question to the candidate
by john＠crediblecontext.com 15 Oct '11

15 Oct '11

Dakar is fine, as long as we do not settle for a "we'll just agree to disagree" conclusion. I will not be on hand, so just imagine I am there to keep poking at this matter. Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: A question to the candidate From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 9:41 am To: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Cc: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen(a)icann.org> Thanks John. I am unsure whether you expect an answer by email or would prefer that we "stockpile" this question for the "Q&A with candidate" session that we have planned in Dakar? I would think that the second option is better, as it means everyone can join the discussion as and when they wish. Also, as I am leaving for Dakar tomorrow and will probably be out of email range for a few days, if anyone else has any questions that would mean I could address them all at the same time, which might work better. Would you be OK with this? Stéphane Le 14 oct. 2011 à 17:16, <john(a)crediblecontext.com> a écrit : > I forgot to switch my earlier email to plain text. Sorry all. > > Berard > > > Stephane, > > > As you think about how you might approach a second term as Chair of the > Council, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on this: > > > In the “Discussion Paper on Next Steps to Produce a New Form of the > RAA” sent to the Council yesterday by Kurt Pritz, is this: > > > "We also note that disagreements in the GNSO Council regarding the > process over the last year have resulted in delays in considering the > substantive issues." > > > This is not the first time or the softest way in which we have heard > this criticism of delay and disharmony. How would you move to solve it? > > > > Cheers, > > > Berard >

3 2