October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Revised Council resolutions 6 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official minutes please find the revised resolutions passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… ), and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ), and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 ); Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs; Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting; Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report; Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements; Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf Resolved, The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010. The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council by October 2012. 2. Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report; Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf) Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena; Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102) Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco. Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11…) NOW THEREFORE BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department 'to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council's and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly. RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation. RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation. RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall 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. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time. RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time. 3. Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions: 1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address. 2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar's respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change. 3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention (example: lawenforcement(a)example.tld<mailto:lawenforcement@example.tld>) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours. 4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency's first contact with a registrar. 5. The Issue Report should include a freedom-of-expression impact analysis. 4. Motion to create a GNSO Drafting Team on Cross Community Working Groups (CCWG): Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC); Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO drafting team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups, in accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation of a GNSO drafting team which will be responsible for developing a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs; Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this open working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the DT can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and Resolved further, that the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT. As specified in the Charter, a status report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar year 2012.

1 0

REMINDER: Pre-Dakar ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20sep11-en.htm Pre-Dakar ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 20 September 2011 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Dakar remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday 13 October at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 13 October at 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Issue Report (GNSO) * Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (GNSO) * Recent WHOIS work * Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories (ccNSO) * Framework of Interpretation Working Group for the delegation and re delegation of ccTLDs (ccNSO) * Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC or Thursday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ccNSO new member
by Olga Cavalli Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

Hi, Iran is new ccNSO member, .ir (Iran), number 120. Regards Olga

1 0

RE: [council] RE: GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

Hi Kristina, The way they are listed below is confusing. I think you are getting two motions mixed up. The numbered 4 line on "Freedom of expression impact analysis" is a different motion I believe. In any event it is not pp4 of the RrSG motion. Also, the original motion that I posted was later amended and then amended again during the call. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011 > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Fri, October 07, 2011 12:09 pm > To: Glen de Saint GÃ©ry<Glen(a)icann.org>, > "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Thanks, Glen. > My notes of Tim’s motion are different from the version below. The version I have has a different paragraph 3 that begins “ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their websites . .. .”, what is paragraph 3 below is paragraph 4 in my notes and the freedom of expression impact analysis is number 5 in the version in my notes. I got behind in my notes around that time of the meeting so the version in my notes may not be correct. > Anyone else have the same version I have? > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:03 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011 > > > > Dear Councillors, > Ahead of the official minutes please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October 2011. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you. > Kind regards, > Glen > 1. Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) > Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, > and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… ), > and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ), > and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 ); > Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; > Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs; > Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting; > Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report; > Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements; > Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey “Working Group”, preferring the term “Working Group” to “Drafting Team” in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf > Resolved, > The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010. > The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here: > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf&nbs… > In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council by October 2012. > > 2. Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations - deferred from 22 September Council meeting > Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) > Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report; > Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf) > Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena; > Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102) > Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco. > Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11…) > NOW THEREFORE BE IT: > RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department ‘to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) > RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. > RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council’s and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly. > RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation. > RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation. > RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall 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. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs. > RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department. > RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. > RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time. > RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time. > > 3. Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system > WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and > WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and > WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity; > RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions: > 1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. > Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address. > 2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change. > 3. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency’s first contact with a registrar. > 4. Freedom of Expression impact analysis. > 4. Motion to create a GNSO Drafting Team on Cross Community Working Groups (CCWG): > Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC); > Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; > Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO drafting team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups, in accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council. > NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: > Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation of a GNSO drafting team which will be responsible for developing a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs; > Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this open working group; > Resolved further, it is recognized that the Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the DT can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and > Resolved further, that the Charter > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf > is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT. As specified in the Charter, a status report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar year 2012. > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > > >

2 1

GNSO Council resolution on the work of the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 9, 2011

Oct. 9, 2011

Dear Steve, I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the ICANN Board to inform you of the resolution passed by the GNSO Council during its September 22 meeting. The resolution reads: Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and, The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. And The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and The GNSO Council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG recommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remains on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair. Would you please inform the Board of this GNSO Council resolution and draw the Board's attention to its various RESOLVED clauses. For the Board's convenience, please see the following link to the JAS WG Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair

1 0

Fwd: Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Final Report / ALAC Ratification
by Stéphane Van Gelder Oct. 9, 2011

Oct. 9, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Objet : Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Final Report / ALAC Ratification > Date : 8 octobre 2011 00:02:26 HAEC > À : Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > Cc : secretary(a)icann.org, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Karla Valente <karla.valente(a)icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> > > Dear Steve, > > > I am pleased to inform you that the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) has ratified the following ALAC Resolution: > > -- start of resolution -- > WHEREAS the ALAC has long supported the requirement of reducing barriers to Top Level Domain (TLD) creation in developing economies; and > WHEREAS the ALAC has co-chartered the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) and welcomed the participation of many At-Large members in its activities; and > WHEREAS the ALAC has reviewed and endorsed earlier milestone reports of this Working Group; and > WHEREAS the JAS WG has produced a Final Report for consideration by the ICANN community that has been reviewed by At-Large; > RESOLVED THAT the ALAC endorses the Final Report of the JAS Working Group and urges the ICANN Board to implement its recommendations; and > RESOLVED THAT the ALAC thanks the community volunteers and ICANN staff whose work contributed - and continues to contribute - to the advancement of the JAS WG mandate. > > --- end of resolution -- > > With 14 out of 15 ALAC members voting, the ALAC vote result was 14 in favour, 0 against and 0 objections. > > The resolution is therefore carried unanimously by the ALAC. > > You may review the process by which the ALAC vote took place on page: > https://community.icann.org/x/9gKpAQ > > Please be so kind to find a copy of the JAS Applicant Support Working Group Final Report enclosed for your immediate transmittal to the ICANN Board. I trust that this will become a key item on the Board Agenda. > > Please find also enclosed, appended below my email, the correspondence I have received from Stéphane Van Gelder, GNSO Council Chair, indicating that the GNSO Council has approved a motion to forward the final Report of the JAS WG to the ICANN Board for review. Details of the motion found below. > > Finally, let me remind you that volunteers and staff have worked very hard throughout the summer in order to have this report ready for the ICANN Board to have enough time to initiate the process by which its recommendations will be adopted by the Board during the ICANN DAKAR meeting. The Community has responded to the Board's call for action in Nairobi and in Cartagena. The Board must now respond equally as quickly to the Community's resolve that launching a new gTLD programme without Applicant Support would be politically incorrect for ICANN. > > Best regards, > > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > > -------- Original message -------- > Sujet: JAS Final Report > Date : Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:41:48 +0200 > De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Pour : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Copie à : Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Olivier, > > In my capacity as GNSO Council Chair, it is my pleasure to inform you, in your capacity as ALAC Chair, that the Council voted to approve the motion shown below during its meeting today. > > Best, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > GNSO Council Chair > > Whereas: > > The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and > > The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and, > > The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and > > The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. and > > The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and > > The GNSO council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, > > However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, > > Resolved: > > The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and > > The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review and approval, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and > > The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG of therecommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and > > The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and > > The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and > > The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. > > Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair. >

1 0

Correction:GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

Dear All, The url to the Whois Charter has been corrected in the following paragraphs - Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf - The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf Apologies for the inconvenience. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… ), and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ), and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 ); Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs; Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting; Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report; Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements; Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf Resolved, The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010. The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council by October 2012. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official minutes please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… ), and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ), and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 ); Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs; Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting; Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report; Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements; Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf Resolved, The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010. The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf&nbs… In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council by October 2012. 2. Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations - deferred from 22 September Council meeting Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report; Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf) Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena; Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102) Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco. Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11…) NOW THEREFORE BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department 'to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council's and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly. RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation. RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation. RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall 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. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time. RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time. 3. Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity; RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions: 1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address. 2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar's respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change. 3. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency's first contact with a registrar. 4. Freedom of Expression impact analysis. 4. Motion to create a GNSO Drafting Team on Cross Community Working Groups (CCWG): Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC); Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO drafting team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups, in accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation of a GNSO drafting team which will be responsible for developing a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs; Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this open working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the DT can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and Resolved further, that the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT. As specified in the Charter, a status report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar year 2012. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Protecting Trademark Rights for New gTLDs: ICANN Seeks Service Providers for Trademark Clearinghouse Operation
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-5-03oct11-en.htm Protecting Trademark Rights for New gTLDs: ICANN Seeks Service Providers for Trademark Clearinghouse Operation (Trademark Clearinghouse or "TMCH" Service Providers) 3 October 2011 ICANN is issuing today a Request for Information (RFI)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-rfi-03oct1…> [PDF, 243 KB] to identify potential Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Service Providers. The Trademark Clearinghouse will provide a set of rights protection mechanisms that are part of ICANN's program to make new top-level domains widely available. The primary purpose of the TMCH is to function as an information repository, offering authentication and validation services for trademark data. Trademark holders and gTLD registry operators will rely on the TMCH to support rights protection mechanisms for the new gTLD space. The TMCH is designed to be available globally, with capabilities for validating trademark data in multiple scripts and responding to inquiries in multiple languages. Part of ICANN's core mission is to preserve the operational security and stability of the Internet while also supporting open competition. With the upcoming launch of the New generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program, the Internet community will see the introduction of a number of new gTLD namespaces. To ensure that the new gTLD program gave appropriate consideration to trademark protection, ICANN's Board passed a resolution on 6 March 2009 to form an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) to seek enhanced solutions supporting trademark protection. One recommendation was the establishment of a Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). Candidates for operating the TMCH are expected to meet the requirements outlined in the RFI, which include, for example, a demonstrated understanding of the issues concerning global intellectual property rights and the Internet, global capability to authenticate and validate trademark information, and experience designing, building, and operating secure transaction processing systems with 24/7/365 availability. ICANN seeks candidates with a proven ability to manage and support processes in multiple languages, in addition to fulfillment of the technical requirements. RFI activities schedule at a glance: Request for information issued by ICANN 3 October 2011 Respondents' Q&A - Teleconference On or about 4 November 2011 Written responses due 25 November 2011 - 23:59 UTC Public announcement of provider engagement 14 Februrary 2012 The deadline for responses is 25 November 2011 at 23:59 UTC. Responses should be submitted to: tm-clearinghouse-rfi(a)icann.org<mailto:tm-clearinghouse-rfi@icann.org>. Responses received after the deadline will not be considered. Q&A What is the TMCH? The TMCH serves as an information repository that will accept and maintain data relating to trademark rights, including both registered and unregistered rights, and will support registration processes in ASCII and IDN gTLDs. What is a TMCH Service Provider? The functions of data authentication/validation and database administration may be performed by a single service provider or by two separate service providers. Respondent proposals will be accepted for: · performance of the data authentication/validation function of the TMCH; or · performance of the database administration function of the TMCH; or · performance of both the data authentication/validation functions and the database administration functions of the TMCH. The foremost considerations for selection of the TMCH service provider(s) will be the ability to authenticate, validate, store and disseminate the data at the highest level of technical stability and security without interference with the integrity or timeliness of the gTLD registration process or registry operations. What are the key functions? Functions that are critical to the operation of the TMCH include: · Trademark Claims and Sunrise Services - Provide transactional services that allow parties such as registries and/or registrars to rapidly obtain information necessary to conduct Sunrise and Trademark Claims services for new gTLDs. · Database Operation - Maintain the repository of relevant trademark data while providing services for conducting searches and integrating with TMCH operations. · Data Authentication and Validation - Establish and execute standard processes for authentication of trademark rights information, validation of proof-of-use information, and verification of contact information. · Customer Service - Answer questions, resolve issues, and provide support for use of TMCH services. · Language Support - Conduct TMCH operations in multiple languages. Who will use the TMCH and when? With the launch of the new gTLD program, new gTLD operators will be required to offer services that are supported solely by the TMCH for a sunrise period of at least 30 days, and for an initial operating period during the first 60 days of general registration. Beyond that period, registries may optionally continue to use the TMCH trademark claims services but these are not mandated beyond the initial time periods specified for any given new gTLD. What kind of information is ICANN requesting and who should respond? Respondents should be parties interested in committing themselves as potential TMCH operators. The RFI covers numerous areas, but respondents should be prepared to discuss the following: · How they can scale quickly to meet the demands of a large number of transactions; · How they will provide and manage the availability of services to users 24x7, 365 days a year; · The capabilities they have to support processes in multiple languages; · The capabilities they have to provide global trademark authentication and validation services; · Their experience and expertise in trademark protection issues; and · Their ability to work with ICANN and the community to refine core business processes and evolve the TMCH operation. Background The IRT, consisting of 18 geographically diverse subject matter experts from the intellectual property arena, made several recommendations to enhance trademark protection (see http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-final-report-trademark-protect… [PDF, 299 KB]). The original proposal has undergone multiple revision cycles based on ICANN's public comment process, resulting in the current model. The requirements for the TMCH have been defined at a high level and will be refined through the RFI and subsequent processes. The overall goals of the TMCH are to: · Support rights protection mechanisms in the gTLD program; · Operate cost-effective services that do not place undue financial or administrative burdens on trademark holders, registrars, and registries; and · Establish an ongoing partnership with stakeholders to evolve the TMCH so that it remains an efficient, value-added service provider for the IP and gTLD communities. On 22 June 2011, the TMCH was discussed at the ICANN meetings in Singapore, where participants took part in a working session on a straw-man implementation model (http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24629) Development of the models for mandatory Sunrise and Trademark claims processes will continue while ICANN evaluates responses to this RFI. Links to Relevant Information · New gTLD Program<http://newgtlds.icann.org/> · Trademark Clearinghouse<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-clean-30ma…> [PDF, 320 KB] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Community Input on Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-03oct11-en.htm Community Input on Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/stratplan-draft-2012-03oct11-en.htm> Open Date: 3 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:stratplan-draft-2012@icann.org> Close Date: 17 November 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/stratplan-draft-2012/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose ICANN continues to pursue the Strategic Planning process in accordance with our published timeline. We are posting a draft version of the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan that is the result of community consultation and staff work. We are soliciting your feedback and comments. There are two versions: · Draft 2012-2015 Strategic plan<http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/draft-strategic-plan-2012-2015-clean…> (Clean) [PDF, 865 KB] · Draft 2012-2015 Strategic plan<http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/draft-strategic-plan-2012-2015-redli…> (Redline) [PDF, 934 KB] The overall structure of the Strategic Plan has remained consistent with last year's plan. Based upon the input sessions with SO/AC and Staff, some major themes emerged that are in the plan: · Last year, there was focus on the IANA follow-on contract risk - this year it was not widely discussed which is evidence that strong support action was/is being taken · The DNS Stability & Security message moves beyond DNS to include IP addresses and parameters (the Unique Identifiers - per ICANN's Mission) · The Whois database policy and procedures will receive increased attention · Acknowledgement that Law Enforcement is engaging more · The New gTLD Program is raising the awareness and profile of ICANN all around the globe - "the New gTLD Program intensifies everything at ICANN" · Provided for effective and constructive early participation of the GAC in the policy development process · There will be new stakeholders and categories of stakeholders brought into the ICANN multi-stakeholder model in the next few years · ICANN needs to better define principles for internationalization to steer decisions and expansion · ICANN needs better enterprise-wide processes and systems (not just Finance) to operate in the future · ICANN is an exemplary multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance · ICANN meetings present a unique opportunity for ICANN to deliver on the Mission - how meetings can evolve to be more effective This draft is based upon. · GNSO IPC input on August 29, 2011 (concerns over Whois, rights protection mechanisms, ICANN lack of neutrality and ethics) · ALAC input on August 29, 2011 (outreach to the "edges" of the community, developing country participation, development of metrics) · GNSO RySG input on August 29, 2011 (ease of participation, early GAC involvement in policy development process and work to execute the adoption of IDNA 2008, cost benefit analysis of SSR, engaging new stakeholders) · ccNSO Singapore input on June 20, 2011 (a session to receive ccNSO input is scheduled) · ICANN Team Brainstorm session dated June 2, 2011 · ICANN Staff Focus Area Working Sessions · Strategic Metrics Updates - Staff Input · ATRT Recommendations report - June 22, 2011 · ICANN Staff review of Draft: multiple inputs The public comment period will close on 17 November 2011. The draft plan will be revised based on the comments received. A final version of the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan will be submitted to the Board for approval at their upcoming meeting in December 2011. 2012-2015 Strategic Plan Draft Development Next Steps: [http://www.icann.org/images/2012-2015-strat-plan-next-steps-03oct11.png] We appreciate your important contribution to ICANN's 2012-2015 strategic planning process. Section II: Background ICANN produces a three-year Strategic Plan (reviewed and updated annually) and an annual Operating Plan. As part of the strategic planning process each year, ICANN considers major internal and external events that have occurred since the last writing of the plan. The last plan was posted in December 2010 and approved in February 2011. Section III: Document and Resource Links This year's approved Strategic Plan 2011-2014<http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2011-2014-28mar11-en.…> [PDF, 3.37 MB] - posted after being adopted by the ICANN Board at the Silicon Valley Meeting - has incorporated strategic metrics based on extensive community input, review and public forums held in both Cartagena and Silicon Valley. Section IV: Additional Information The Strategic Plan informs the Operating Plan and Budget and helps to define ICANN's yearly goals and priorities, and will be considered for adoption by the Board. Staff Contact: Carole Cornell, Senior Director Project Management Email: carole.cornell(a)icann.org<mailto:carole.cornell@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Community%20Input%20on%20Draft%202012-2015%20Strategic%20Plan%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