November 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Outreach Task Force Charter motion, (item 3 of our agenda on Thursday)
by john＠crediblecontext.com 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Stephane, I would be happy to sponsor a motion derived from the report of the Drafting Team, just not this motion. When the BC asked for the motion to be deferred in Dakar, it was with the intention to offer a friendly amendment. When we went looking to do that, we realized both the Councillors involved (and with whom we would need to confer) were no longer on the scene. Our confusion on the matter is what led to my initial email on this matter. The BC's concerns are based on its current position that "We prefer that support provided is featured as support to the constituency/SG, rather than centralized in permanent ICANN staff…" The charter's call to "consolidate human and financial resources relating to GNSO outreach" falls well short of recognizing the importance of each constituencies' role on the front lines of expanding this multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up organization. And the charter also seems to mandate participation of groups (e.g., ALAC) that are outside the scope of the Council's role. Even if consolidation and central command-and-control are ultimately the best way to go, we need to begin by knowing more than we do. For that reason, I would offer that we approve Objective 3 of the draft charter at this time. It will be hard to agree to do more until we have this data in hand. It reads: Objective 3: The OTF shall conduct a survey of existing GNSO outreach activities by the stakeholder groups, constituencies, and ICANN, including the Fellowship program, to identify: 1. Populations engaged in domain name system (DNS) issues but otherwise underrepresented in ICANN; 2. Individuals and organizations involved in related DNS/Internet Governance organizations; 3. Industries and organizations (public, private, nonprofit, government related, Internet Society (ISOC) Chapters, attorneys and other professional associations) with an interest in DNS/Internet Governance; 4. People and organizations that may have submitted comments to ICANN, but who are not regularly engaged in a GNSO Working Group ; 5. People who were previously active within ICANN; 6. Universities that focus on studies and research related to DNS/ Internet Governance; and 7. Successful and pioneer projects that are happening now in some regions. Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Outreach Task Force Charter motion, (item 3 of our agenda on Thursday) From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Mon, November 14, 2011 9:11 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Councillors, This is to inform you of discussion that has been happening on the above topic. John Berard contacted the Council Leadership a few days ago asking whether the OTF motion could still be considered at our next Council meeting, in light of the fact that both maker and seconder of the motion (Olga and Debbie) are no longer on the Council. In order to frame our answer, we first put to the question to ICANN general counsel. The response was that there is no special provision for this in the bylaws. So simply put, we're on our own here. The Leadership Team and Support Staff have discussed this just now during our usual planning conference call that happens ahead of every Council meeting and we have looked at some possible options. As a reminder, we find ourselves in this situation because the motion has already been deferred once. I am of the opinion that despite the fact that its sponsors are no longer on the Council, the motion itself is valid and therefore should be considered. However, we could do several things: - Request two new sponsors for the motion at the start of this agenda item. - Request whether there would be any opposition to, due to exceptional circumstances, a second deferral of the motion. - Vote on the motion at this meeting, and accept the outcome as the decision of the Council, which is what we do for every motion anyway. If we go ahead and vote on the motion and it does not have two new sponsors, we may have to deal with possible proposed amendments. In this case, as there would be no-one to accept them as friendly, I suggest that we would have to treat them as unfriendly by default and vote on them first. I put these options to you now so that you will have time to think about them before Thursday's meeting and maybe refer to your groups. No action or decision is expected before then. I will present these options to the Council again as we come to this item on Thursday. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

Outreach Task Force Charter motion, (item 3 of our agenda on Thursday)
by Stéphane Van Gelder 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Councillors, This is to inform you of discussion that has been happening on the above topic. John Berard contacted the Council Leadership a few days ago asking whether the OTF motion could still be considered at our next Council meeting, in light of the fact that both maker and seconder of the motion (Olga and Debbie) are no longer on the Council. In order to frame our answer, we first put to the question to ICANN general counsel. The response was that there is no special provision for this in the bylaws. So simply put, we're on our own here. The Leadership Team and Support Staff have discussed this just now during our usual planning conference call that happens ahead of every Council meeting and we have looked at some possible options. As a reminder, we find ourselves in this situation because the motion has already been deferred once. I am of the opinion that despite the fact that its sponsors are no longer on the Council, the motion itself is valid and therefore should be considered. However, we could do several things: - Request two new sponsors for the motion at the start of this agenda item. - Request whether there would be any opposition to, due to exceptional circumstances, a second deferral of the motion. - Vote on the motion at this meeting, and accept the outcome as the decision of the Council, which is what we do for every motion anyway. If we go ahead and vote on the motion and it does not have two new sponsors, we may have to deal with possible proposed amendments. In this case, as there would be no-one to accept them as friendly, I suggest that we would have to treat them as unfriendly by default and vote on them first. I put these options to you now so that you will have time to think about them before Thursday's meeting and maybe refer to your groups. No action or decision is expected before then. I will present these options to the Council again as we come to this item on Thursday. Thanks, Stéphane

2 1

IRTP-C WG- confirmation of Chair & VC confirmation etc.
by Zahid Jamil 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Dear Councillors, As Council liaison to the IRTP Part C Working Group, I have been asked by the WG to convey certain information and request certain formalities of the council. As noted on the agenda for tomorrow's GNSO Council meeting under item 9.1, the GNSO Council is requested, per the requirements of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, to confirm the chairs for the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group. The Working Group has decided to opt for co-Chairs with one Chair, James Bladel, from the contracted party house and the other Chair, Avri Doria, from the non-contracted party house. Pending the Council's confirmation, James and Avri are fulfilling the chair role on an interim basis. The Working Group is expected to finalize its proposed work plan in the next couple of weeks and will share this with the GNSO Council accordingly. Taking into account the pending approval of the new GNSO PDP by the ICANN Board, the WG has expressed a desire to try and incorporate some of the enhancements of the new PDP process in its work plan as long as these do not conflict with or contravene the required elements of the existing PDP under which it operates. For further information, please see the WG wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtppdpwg/Home. Both I and Markia will also be on the upcoming Council call to assist with any queries. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.

2 1

Updated Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 17 November 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the updated GNSO Council agenda which is also posted on http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-17nov11-en.htm The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+17+November+… The motions can be found on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November… 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 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 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

Fwd: RES: NOMCOMM - ATRT
by Stéphane Van Gelder 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Councillors, FYI, please see the discussion thread below. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Vanda UOL" <vanda(a)uol.com.br> > Objet : RES: NOMCOMM - ATRT > Date : 14 novembre 2011 21:58:41 HNEC > À : 'Stéphane Van Gelder' <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > Dera Stephane > > Thanks for the feedback. The ATRT noted that the NomCom process should be better informed about the qualities and experience needed of an ICANN Director, what the ATRT calls "skill-sets". This process of deciding what skill-sets are needed on the Board would include understanding the challenges ICANN faces, the expected evolution of the organization, qualities/experience already covered by current Board members and any gaps (forward looking given that a person selected by the NomCom only takes their position sometime later, and can be expected to take a period of time to get up to speed as a Director, etc.) > We would like the constituency to consider are what are the skill-sets needed on the Board, collectively and perhaps more specific individual experience and knowledge. And also relevant - which profiles should be avoided for board members! > The NOMCOMM shall consider all the inputs and Nomcomm shall publish the outcomes and requirements as part of NomCom's call for nominations > At the same time, demands for GNSO profiles would be very important to know, in order to better select the independent candidate for the GNSO. > Of course GNSO may choose not to offer any suggestion, but I will appreciate all comments on the matter. > Thank you in advance, > > The ATRT demand: > Extract ATRT recommendations/implementation: > 1. Board should establish formal mechanisms for identifying the > collective skill-set required by the Board (in time to enable > integration of recommendations into next NomCom process beginning in > late 2011): > a. Benchmarking Board skill-sets against similar corporate and > other governance structures > b. Tailoring required skills to suit ICANN's unique structure > and mission through open consultation process, including with SOs and ACs > c. Reviewing these requirements annually, and provide as formal > starting point for NomCom each year > d. Publishing outcomes and requirements as part of NomCom's call > for nominations (starting with next NomCom -- late 2011). > END > Best regards, > > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > IT Trend > Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 > 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > > De: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Enviada em: segunda-feira, 14 de novembro de 2011 06:54 > Para: Vanda UOL > Assunto: Re: NOMCOMM - ATRT > Prioridade: Alta > > Hi Vanda, > > It would help me to get more detailed indications from you and what it is your are expecting from the GNSO, and on what positions that you are looking to fill do you need input from the GNSO. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > > Le 13 nov. 2011 à 22:32, Vanda UOL a écrit : > > > To the Chair of GNSO > > Dear Stephane > > As Chair of the 2012 NomComm I would sincerely appreciate your assistance with input from your organization on criteria for NomComm’s upcoming selections in 2012. This will inform the committee’s establishment of selection criteria, in line with ATRT Recommendations, and enhance the announcement for the open positions to fill for NomComm. As we will post the announcement in mid-December this year, I would be grateful for feedback from you by 1 December 2011. > On behalf of the 2012 NomComm I thank you in advance for your assistance. > Very best regards > > Vanda Scartezini > Nominating Committee > Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 > 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > >

1 0

Talk to Our Web Designers: How Can We Improve ICANN.ORG?
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Nov '11

14 Nov '11

Talk to Our Web Designers: How Can We Improve ICANN.ORG? http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-10nov11-en.htm 10 November 2011 A cross-departmental team within ICANN has been working for months to improve the usefulness and the look of ICANN's main website, ICANN.ORG. The completely redesigned site is expected to launch in the first quarter of 2012. How will the new site differ from today's site? What new features can you look forward to? Will rearranging the site break links to content you rely on? For the answers to these and other relevant questions, join us for a live webinar on 21 November, 2011. Presented by ICANN's Communications Department, the webinar will cover: * Findings of research into what most users are trying to do when they visit ICANN.ORG * Six different types, or "personas," of users, and what they want * How the redesign will meet the needs of most users * The proposed new information architecture for ICANN.ORG. * A look at wireframes for the proposed new home page and the proposed new mobile view of ICANN.ORG * Previews of some new features we think users will like * Your comments, questions, and suggestions: are we heading in the right direction? Representatives from Four Kitchens, the vendor ICANN has contracted to help with the site redesign, will co-present. Previous Four Kitchens clients include Al Jazeera (English site), The Economist, SxSW, and many others. To accommodate multiple time zones, the webinar will be given twice in the same day. Information presented will be identical in each session (though of course input from attendees will vary). Scheduled webinar times are: * 21 November, 2011, 16:00 UTC (3:00 Sydney, 8:00 Marina del Rey, 17:00 Brussels) * 21 November, 2011, 23:00 UTC (10:00 Sydney, 15:00 Marina del Rey, 24:00 Brussels) To join, at the appointed hour simply point your browser to the Adobe Connect room found at http://icann.adobeconnect.com/communications/. Connect will deliver both audio and visuals over your PC. Participants can ask questions via the open chat room during the session. Each session is scheduled for one hour, and will be conducted in English. If you've gotten lost while trying to find something on the ICANN website, or wanted to express your website wishes directly to the people who can implement them, this is your best opportunity for direct engagement. Please plan to join us! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Yearly Update of Statements of Interest
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Nov '11

14 Nov '11

Dear Council Members, Pursuant to the GNSO Operating Procedures you are invited to update your statement of interest. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf 5.3 Statement of Interest Procedures 5.3.1 Timeliness Relevant Parties are required to provide to the GNSO Secretariat a Statement of Interest, updated not less frequently than once a year or whenever there is a material change, setting forth those specified interests, relationships, arrangements, and affiliations that may affect the judgments of Relevant Parties in the conduct of their participation within the GNSO. A completed Statement of Interest, updated at least annually, is a precondition for Relevant Parties to participate in a GNSO Group. At the beginning of each meeting the Chair of the GNSO Group shall ask all Relevant Parties whether they have updates to their Statements of Interest. The SOI Wiki site is located at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/GNSO+Statements+of+Interest+%28…. You will need to use your Confluence Login ID and Password to access this space within the Wiki site. If you are a new Confluence user these will be provided to you. If you have already been given a Confluence Login ID and Password but cannot locate them please let us know. If you have not already done so, please update your statements of interest by the next Council meeting on 17 November 2011. 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

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 26 October 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Nov '11

14 Nov '11

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the two sets of draft minutes (old and new Council) of the GNSO Council Public meeting in Dakar held on 26 October 2011. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting." on 23 November 2011. 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

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Nov '11

14 Nov '11

Call for Volunteers: Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a drafting team that will prepare a request for information on Fake Renewal Notices, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council. What This Group Will Do The GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 6 October in response to one of the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group that 'additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional [RAP WG] 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'. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this Drafting Team (DT) will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the DT will be archived publicly. DT members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The DT is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>. How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the DT mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20Part%20C%20Working%20Group> (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org). Background >From the Registration Abuse Policies Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf>: 'Fake renewal notices are misleading correspondence sent to registrants from an individual or organization claiming to be or to represent the current registrar. These are sent for a variety of deceptive purposes. The desired action as a result of the deceptive notification is: * Pay an unnecessary fee (fraud) * Get a registrant to switch registrars unnecessarily ("slamming", or illegitimate market-based switching) * Reveal credentials or provide authorization codes to facilitate theft of the domain' As a result, the RAP Working Group recommended, following obtaining further information from ICANN's Compliance Department, that the GNSO Council consider requesting an Issue Report on this issue. However, after review of the information received from the ICANN Compliance Department (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) and further discussions on this issue (see for example http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-rap-18jun11-…), the GNSO Council determined that further information would be desirable before deciding whether or not to request an Issue Report. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] [soac-discussion] Board Resolution re: SAC051 Recommendations
by Mason Cole 12 Nov '11

12 Nov '11

I support. ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org To: Liz Gasster ; GNSO Council Sent: Sat Nov 12 05:32:30 2011 Subject: Re: [council] [soac-discussion] Board Resolution re: SAC051 Recommendations Thanks Liz, If staff does not mind, I think it would be useful to prepare an update as you suggest so that Council can then consider whether to send it or not. Councillors, do you support this approach? Stéphane Le 11 nov. 2011 à 18:29, Liz Gasster a écrit : Stéphane and all, If I may add to Stéphanes point about whether the Council wishes to make comments on the SAC 051 Recommendations as requested by the Board, I would note in particular the Boards Resolved to: Resolved (2011.10.28.27), the Board directs staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. The WHOIS Service Requirements Survey Working Group had a preliminary discussion about this at its working group meeting yesterday, noting the possibility that information from the survey could contribute to informing such a roadmap. In addition, the joint SSAC-GNSO IRD Working Group has a draft Final Report currently out for public comment that is also relevant to Recommendation 2 of the SAC report, which states: The ICANN community should evaluate and adopt a replacement domain name registration data access protocol that supports the query and display of Internationalized DNRD as well as addressing the relevant recommendations in SAC 003, SAC 027 and SAC 033. At minimum, it might be advisable to provide an update to the Board on these pending GNSO Whois protocol-related activities to ensure that the roadmap and any subsequent related actions take into consideration the work of these groups. Staff would be happy to prepare a draft of update from the Council on these matters if you would like. Best regards, Liz From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:05 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Fwd: [soac-discussion] Board Resolution re: SAC051 Recommendations Councillors, Please see the message below. At this point, we do not have to respond if we do not think we have anything to add. However, we may wish to respond if there are comments to be made. Please share with your groups and let me know if there is a desire to discuss this at our next Council meeting. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Objet : [soac-discussion] Board Resolution re: SAC051 Recommendations Date : 9 novembre 2011 21:24:34 HNEC À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> Dear Chairs and Vice Chairs of the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, Per the Board Resolution passed on 28 October 2011 at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#5 and listed below, the Board directed staff to forward SAC051 SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure to ICANNs Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations for their advice, if any, with regards to implementing the SSAC recommendations. Please refer to SAC051 at:http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051.pdf and, in particular, to the recommendations listed below. Please send your advice to me at julie.hedlund(a)icann.org <x-msg://78/julie.hedlund@icann.org> not later than 09 January 2011. Please also let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Best regards, Julie Hedlund Director, SSAC Support Recommendations from Security and Stability Advisory Committee Report on Whois Terminology & Structure (SAC051) Whereas, WHOIS service has been an important information service for the Internet community, and is part of all ICANN TLD contracts. Whereas, the shortcomings of the WHOIS protocol have been known for some time. Whereas, on 20 September 2011, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published a report "SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure" (SAC 051), including specific recommendations aimed at clarity of terminology and structure with regard to discussions regarding WHOIS. Resolved (2011.10.28.26), the Board hereby acknowledges the receipt of SAC 051, and thanks SSAC and other contributors for their efforts in the creation of the report. Resolved (2011.10.28.27), the Board directs staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. Resolved (2011.10.28.28), the Board directs staff to forward SAC 051 to ICANN's Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations for their advice, if any, with regards to implementing the SSAC recommendations, and to forward SAC 051 to the Whois Review Team SAC051 Recommendations: Recommendation 1: The ICANN community should adopt the terminology outlined in this report in documents and discussions, in particular: · Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD). The data that domain name registrants provide when registering a domain name and that registrars or registries collects. · Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (DNRD-AP). The components of a (standard) communications exchangequeries and responsesthat specify the access to DNRD. · Doman Name Registration Data Directory Service (DNRD-DS). The service(s) offered by domain name registries and registrars to implement the DNRD-AP and to provide access to DNRD-DSD. Additional terminology includes DNRDe, DNRD Policy, DNRD-DS Policy, Internationalized DNRD, and Localized DNRD. The term WHOIS should only be used when referring to the protocol as currently specified in RFC 3912. Recommendation 2: The ICANN community should evaluate and adopt a replacement domain name registration data access protocol that supports the query and display of Internationalized DNRD as well as addressing the relevant recommendations in SAC 003, SAC 027 and SAC 033. Recommendation 3: The ICANN community should develop a uniform and standard framework for accessing DNRD that would provide mechanisms to define and implement a range of verification methods, credential services, and access control capabilities.

1 0