November 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 21, 2011

Nov. 21, 2011

Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov…> Open Date: 21 November 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:thick-whois-preliminary-report@icann.org> Close Date: 30 December 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/thick-whois-preliminary-report/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose ICANN Staff is seeking comments on its Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/preliminary-report-thick-whois-21nov11-e…> [PDF, 635 KB]. Specifically, this Report addresses not only a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), but also considers any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not. The Preliminary Issue Report informs the GNSO Council concerning the possible requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs in advance of the Council's vote on whether to commence a Policy Development Process (PDP) on this issue. This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the ICANN community to provide its views on this topic and on whether a Policy Development Process should be initiated to consider the requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. This Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Section II: Background In the context of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A as well as the Part B Working Group, the issue of 'thick' Whois was discussed and it was noted that: "The benefit would be that in a thick registry one could develop a secure method for a gaining registrar to gain access to the registrant contact information. Currently there is no standard means for the secure exchange of registrant details in a thin registry. In this scenario, disputes between the registrant and admin contact could be reduced, as the registrant would become the ultimate approver of a transfer". At the same time it was noted that even though requiring 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs would have benefits in the context of transfers, it would be important to explore 'any other potential positive or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account'. As a result, the IRTP Part B Working Group recommended requesting: "an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not". This recommendation that was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Section III: Document and Resource Links Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/preliminary-report-thick-whois-21nov11-e…> [PDF, 635 KB] Section IV: Additional Information None Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Thick%20Whois%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

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 21, 2011

Nov. 21, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21nov11-en.htm Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-c-charter-21nov11-en.htm> Open Date: 21 November 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:irtp-c-charter@icann.org> Close Date: 22 December 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-c-charter/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Working Group is requesting your input on its Charter Questions to help inform its deliberations. The Charter Questions are: * "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. * Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. * Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. For further information on these Charter Questions, please review the IRTP Part C Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf [PDF, 625 KB]). In addition, the Working Group has identified the following specific issues / questions it would like to receive further input on: * In relation to charter question a), the Issue Report notes that 'data on the frequency of hijacking cases is a pivotal part of this analysis. Mechanisms should be explored to develop accurate data around this issue in a way that meets the needs of registrars to protect proprietary information while at the same time providing a solid foundation for data-based policy making. Data on legitimate transfer activity benefitting from the current locking policy wording needs to be collected'. * In addition to the ccTLDs described in the Issue Report that do have a procedure or process for a 'change of control' (.ie, .eu and .uk) are there any other ccTLDs that have similar procedures or processes which the WG should review in the context of charter question a)? Furthermore, the WG would be interested to receive feedback on the experiences with these or other ccTLD procedures or processes for a 'change of control' as well as identifying potential benefits and/or possible negative consequences from applying similar approaches in a gTLD context. * In relation to charter question b) and c), the WG would be interested in further input or data in relation to the incidence of this issue to determine its scope and the most appropriate way to address it. Section II: Background The aim of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO Council is reviewing and considering revisions to this policy through a series of Working Groups it has established to conduct these efforts. The IRTP Part C Policy Development Process has just begun and the Working Group formed is requesting your input to help inform its deliberations, as required by the ICANN Bylaws. Section III: Document and Resource Links IRTP Part C Final Issue Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf [PDF, 625 KB] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/ Section IV: Additional Information None Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Inter-Registrar%20Transfer%20Policy%20Part%20C%20Policy%20Development%20Process%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

Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois
by Marika Konings Nov. 21, 2011

Nov. 21, 2011

Dear All, Please find attached the Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois, as requested by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 September. The report will be posted later today for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/) Comments may be submitted until 30 December. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from GNSO Council Weekly Meeting Room 17 November 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 18, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find the Adobe Connect Chat transcript from the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November 2011. > Marika Konings:GNSO Council Meeting - 17 November 2011 > Carlos Dionisio Aguirre:Hi all, im waiting operator call me > Carlos Dionisio Aguirre:thanks . Im here now > Jeff Neuman:Just talked to Mason...he just landed and will join in a >couple of minutes > Wendy Seltzer:Joy is just dialing in > Mason Cole:Hi everyone > Bill Drake:Can I ask CSG colleagues: were you represented on the team >that developed this? > Yoav Keren:Hi all, sorry for delay. Had a personal unplanned delay. > Zahid Jamil:Thanks Bill, having that carification would be helpful > Zahid Jamil:We should not let bottom up processes be defetated - >hopefullly the slight clarification can help > Bill Drake:@Zahid it's fair to say nobody wants to defeat bottom up etc >etc. But there's value in not doing everything in silos. The idea is >coordination between levels, not one precludes the other. > Alan Greenberg:The GNSO is in general, SO opaque that efforts such as >the ones described in the charter can only help. > Zahid Jamil:I support coordination - I would also support - the TF - >just need clarification to allay fears in our constituency > Wendy Seltzer:I keep dropping off Adobe > Jeff Neuman:So Zahid, can you guys work this out and fix it in the next >few weeks? > Zahid Jamil:I think a one line amendment saying exaclty what Bill >mentioned and I agreed with should work > Jeff Neuman:Bill? > Jeff Neuman:Sorry..Bill...do you agree? > Bill Drake:@Jeff I don't see what's broken that needs fixing over the >next couple weeks. Zahid asked if this precludes CSG getting funding. >Can't see how it does. So what do we need to do? > Bill Drake:??? > Bill Drake:We really in procedural blue skies here... > Wolf Knoben:I abstain > Bill Drake:But nobody has said what will be accomplished/done with the >deferral....? > rafik dammak:effort started more than 2 years now, well lets take more >time... > Jeff Neuman:@Bill - I would like to see Zahid propose the clarification >to the motion/charter and to see your input on that > Jeff Neuman:We need a seconder on both motions > rafik dammak:@jeff joy is the seconder > John Berard:who is the second on Mary's motion? > rafik dammak:@jeff sorry r u talking about the urdp motion? > Jeff Neuman:@Rafik...yes on udrp > Liz Gasster:@ Jeff and Bill, Zahid, John -- staff can help draft a >revised motion unless you would like the drafting team to revise the >charter - in that case a motion could direct the DT to do that > Liz Gasster:on Outreach > Joy:I am seconding Mary's motion > Alan Greenberg:RE: PEDNR, that being said, the reference in the 3rd >resolve would effectively be no-op and therefore not invalid (it just >would not require any work). > Zahid Jamil:@Liz re Outreach- I would be happy to join that effort and >encourage you to to do so. > Marika Konings:I've just added it in Adobe Connect > Bill Drake:@Liz I would think we should hear first from CSG something >about they'd want before geting staff into revising > Liz Gasster:@ Zahid - a motion to reconvene the DT or requests >"interested Council members" to revise the charter with staff? TRying to >figure out the exact preferred next step you all would like > Zahid Jamil:Any review needs to be olistic, in context and should not >disrupt the new gTLD launch > Zahid Jamil:@ Liz - reconvening may work - I will get back to you on >that after discussing with BC > Bill Drake:@Zahid, so is your stance now that we need to redo the whole >charter, rather than just the motion? > Zahid Jamil:no - I would rather we simply amend this motion/charter >rather than do a grueling do over > Zahid Jamil:but need to share suggestion with BC > Zahid Jamil:ie share Liz'a suggestion > Bill Drake:Suggestion to "revise the charter with staff"? > Zahid Jamil:suggestion for reconvening - but would suggest we try and >see if we can go with her first option of working with staff to reword > Wolf Knoben:@Bill, Zahid - I'd like to amend the motion including >elements improving the charter > David Taylor:Freindly amendment RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council >requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection >mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not >limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be prepared with staff commencing >the drafting of this report eighteen (18) months after the publication of >at least a 100 UDRP or URS that cover at least 10 new gTLDs. Such report >should be delivered to the GNSO Council within four (4) months of that >trigger date. > Zahid Jamil:@ Wolf - maybe we could work with BIll on doing that with >staff help as offeered by Liz - may avoid a redo > Alan Greenberg:really should say 18 months PROVIDING the thresholds are >passed. > Wolf Knoben:@Zahid - yes, I join the effort. Maybe Liz could take the >initiative?? > Julie Hedlund:@Wolf and @Zahid I can support that work on outreach. I >supported the DT for the charter > Zahid Jamil:@Liz - maybe we could initiate a list with some suggested >languages from you, joining in Bill, Wendy, John, Wolf , Jeff and me and >any others that may wish to join > Zahid Jamil:Thanks Julie > Julie Hedlund:@Zahid I'll take the lead > Julie Hedlund:@Zahid to clarify is this a list of revisions to the >charter that would be included in a new motion? > Julie Hedlund:perhaps to be presented for the next Council meeting? > Zahid Jamil:@ yes and yes > Zahid Jamil:@Julie yes and yed > Julie Hedlund:Great -- @Zahid -- thank you. I'll start it up > Joy:i would be happy to assist > Julie Hedlund:@Joy -- to clarify on a revised outreach motion? > Joy:oh sorry = i thought you were on Jeff's motion - apologies > Wendy Seltzer:Is the audio stream down? > Julie Hedlund:@Joy -- thanks it's gets confusing! > Marika Konings:@Wendy - the line got disconnected, but they are trying >to reconnect > Wendy Seltzer:thanks Marika, several of our members are listening > Marika Konings:@Wendy, we are working on it, but there seem to be some >issues with the line > Marika Konings:Apologies for the inconvenience > Wendy Seltzer:in queue, keep dropping out of adobe > Joy:Mason there is some background noise - it sounds like you are in a >chime store > Mason Cole:Oh, sorry Joy....I guess that means I can "chime in"??? > Mason Cole:terrible joke, sorry > Joy::-) oh very good! > Wolf Knoben:Margie, could you send a copy of your presentation to the >list? Thanks > Bill Drake:Apparently the audiocast is down again > Zahid Jamil:@ Marika - I think thats a good suggestion > Marika Konings:@Bill - we are still working on it, but it looks like >the line is back up again? > Wendy Seltzer:thanks, Marika, confirmed > David Taylor:@Alan: agree with your suggestion. Thanks. > Alan Greenberg:@David - glad to help. > Zahid Jamil:Thanks Stephane > Wendy Seltzer:Did we do better timezone rotation of these new dates? > Wendy Seltzer:Please re-send the dates.. > Glen de saint Gery:Yes I will resend the Council dates and times > Joy:thanks Stephane > David Taylor:Thanks all > Jeff Neuman:thanks Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Public Comments Forum Wiki Community testing
by Stéphane Van Gelder Nov. 18, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Objet : [soac-discussion] FW: Public Comments Forum Wiki Community testing > Date : 18 novembre 2011 13:21:31 HNEC > À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > > > Dear Community Leaders, > > This is a friendly reminder that today is the deadline for this call and we will start the activity on 21 November 2011. > We have received volunteers from ALAC/At-Large and IPC so far. Thank you! > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > > > From: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:32:20 -0800 > To: "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > Subject: Public Comments Forum Wiki Community testing > >> Dear Community Leaders, >> >> I have communicated before and during Dakar that we are looking into forming a volunteer group to provide feedback on a prototype Public Comments Forum Wiki solution that is an outgrowth of ATRT Recommendations 16 and 17 and our most recent Public Comment solicitation (entitled “Phase II of Public Comments Process Enhancements”), which closed on 15 October 2011. For further information, please see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-enhancements-ii-31aug…, which includes links to a Report and Analysis of the public comments received. >> >> We are counting on that the members of the Focus Group we have formed back in July will again support us in this new effort. Some community members approached me in Dakar too, volunteering to the take part in the activity. But this email is intended to provide you additional details to help you in identifying other individuals to participate in this activity. Thanks again in advance for your support in this. >> >> Purpose: To help ICANN Staff assess the usability and viability of a Public Comments Forum developed on ICANN's Confluence Wiki platform. >> >> Scope: This solution was designed to be a replacement of the Public Comment page structures on ICANN.org except that, for technical reasons, Forum Archives whose open dates are prior to any final cutover will remain on ICANN.org and will not be converted to the Wiki environment. The Wiki does, however, link directly to the ICANN.org Archives so that users are only one click from finding the information they seek. >> >> Volunteers: To perform a robust and thorough test, we would prefer at least two dozen volunteers and are therefore requesting 2-3 representatives from each ICANN SO, AC or SG. >> >> Methodology: To simulate a real Public Comments Forum, our plan is that the group will test features, functions, and interact/collaborate entirely within the Confluence Wiki environment. Details, including links and login information, will be sent to the testers separately. >> >> Duration: We anticipate that the testing period will last one month from 21 November 2011 through 20 December 2011 at which point the Wiki site will be closed for Staff evaluation. >> >> Content: ICANN Staff will provide to the volunteers a set of specific features and functions to be tested and along with a series of questions to help guide the discussions. >> >> Outcomes: The resultant Wiki collaboration and discussion threads will be used by Staff to inform its planning and final disposition of the Wiki platform for Public Comments. Staff will coordinate with the Public Participation Committee (PPC) of the Board and will communicate the decisions and rationale upon completion of all evaluations. >> >> I hope you find the above information helpful in identifying and selecting candidates to help with this feedback process. >> >> We hope to hear back from you with your volunteer names and their contact details on or before 18 November 2011 in order to start the activity as planned. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Filiz Yilmaz >> Sr Dir Participation and Engagement >> ICANN >>

1 0

Reminder: Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings January-June 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 18, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find a list of proposed dates at a four week interval, and times for the GNSO Council meetings for the first six months of 2012. Thursday 19 January 11:00UTC Thursday 16 February 15:00 UTC Wednesday 14 March, San Jose, Costa Rica 14:00 -local time (20:00 UTC) Thursday 12 April 11:00 UTC Thursday 10 May 15:00 UTC Thursday 7 June 20:00 UTC Wednesday 27 June, Prague 14:00 -local time (12:00 UTC) Please review and comment whether these will work for you before the dates are posted on the GNSO Master calendar http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index-2012.htm. Thank you. 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

3 2

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 17 November 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 17 November, 2011 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111117-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#nov Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO RAA Update Slides
by Margie Milam Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

Dear All, Attached are my slides from today's GNSO Council call on the RAA update. Best regards, Margie _______ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _______

2 1

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#70]
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : jeudi 17 novembre 2011 15:26 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#70] Name of Officer: * David Maher Officer Email Address: * dmaher(a)pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org> Date Prepared: * Thursday, November 17, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Registries Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Illness of Councilor Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Council meeting Nov 17, 2011 Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, November 18, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Jeff Neuman

1 0

Latest Updated Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 17 November 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated agenda for the GNSO Council meeting today, Thursday, 17 November at 20:00 UTC There are two updates : Under Item 1 Update of Statements of Interest Brian Winterfeldt https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Brian+Winterfeldt+SOI Under Item 9: AOB 9.1 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (IRTPC) Working Group Co-Chairs approval by GNSO Council (Avri Doria and James Bladel) Update (Marika Konings) If you have not done so, please remember to send me your telephone number if you would like the operator to dial-out to you for the call. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 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 20:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeti…> Coordinated Universal Time: 20:00 UTC 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington DC; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 18 November 2011 05:00 Tokyo; 09:00 Auckland Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates Lanre Ajayi https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Lanre+Ajayi+SOI Wolfgang Kleinwâchter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Neue+Seite Joy Liddicoat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Joy+Liddicoat+SOI Thomas Rickert https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Thomas+Rickert+SOI Brian Winterfeldt https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Brian+Winterfeldt+SOI 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: · 26 October minutes – will be approved approved on 23 November 2011. · 26 October new Council minutes – will be approved approved on 23 November 2011. Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 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: 9 (9 - No change). • Other activities: 10 (11 - Deleted: RAP, request to ICANN Compliance complete) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change). Item 3: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes) As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)'s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a set of recommendations on a global outreach program A motion is being made to approve the resulting Outreach Task Force's charter. This motion is deferred from the Dakar GNSO Council meeting. Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November… 3.1 Reading of the Motion (Stéphane Van Gelder) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: UDRP (25 minutes) Following the drafting of an Issue Report on a possible review of the UDRP, a motion is before the Council to initiate a PDP on this topic and that a drafting team be formed to write a charter for the working group. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Mary Wong) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote If the Council does not approve the above motion, a second motion on this issue has been made and will be examined by the Council. Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November… 4.4 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 4.5 Discussion 4.6 Vote Item 5: Dakar Board resolution on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments RAA (20 minutes) At its meeting in Dakar, the Board approved a resolution on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments (RAA). http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7 The resolution requests staff to prepare an issue report as a prelude to a PDP. This item is an update from staff on this work. 5.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 5.2 Discussion Item 6: Best Practices to address abusive domain registrations (15 minutes) On 3 February 2011, the GNSO Council resolved to request a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. The discussion paper was submitted to the Council on 28 September http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1… During the Dakar meeting wrap-up, there were questions on whether a WG should be created as a result of the discussion paper and if so a DT would need to create the charter. Another question asked was should the paper be put out for public comment instead? 6.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting (10 minutes) Following the Council's request, SSAC has responded that it does not see any additional work it can do on this at this time http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-chair-to-faltstrom-10oct1… During the Dakar meeting wrap-up, it was suggested that Council reps go back to their respective groups and think about possible next steps and what to do with data once it is available? It was also asked whether Staff look at how the ccTLDs address this issue? This discussion item aims at seeing if this issue should be closed or if work should continue. 7.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: Open Council Meeting Drafting Team (10 minutes) Following the Singapore meeting, a GNSO Drafting Team (DT) was formed to work on possible enhancements to the format of the GNSO Council's Open Meetings. An update was provided to the Council on the DT's work during our Dakar Open Council Meeting. As some DT members have since left the Council, this discussion item is an opportunity for the Council to decide how to take this work forward. 8.1 Update from DT (John Berard) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 9.1 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (IRTPC) Working Group Chair approval by GNSO Council (Avri Doria and James Bladel) Update (Marika Konings) 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-operating-procedures-22sep11-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 October & March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 18:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 22:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Beijing, China (CST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/cst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Auckland New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2012, 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