February 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed friendly amendment to motion 1
by Stéphane Van Gelder Feb. 24, 2011

Feb. 24, 2011

Councillors, It has come to my notice that the comment period that I have planned for in my motion to approve the SOI pos (motion 1 on the wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_february_motions) is for 21 days. This would mean, presuming that the Council approves this motion today, that the comment period would end at the time of the SF meeting. As it is customary not to lump everything together during ICANN meetings and therefore not to have comment periods end during them, I would like to propose an FA to lengthen that comment period to 30 days. That is the only change I am proposing. Wolf, as seconder of the motion would you consider this amendment friendly? Thanks, Stéphane

2 2

Updated Draft San Francisco GNSO schedule
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 24, 2011

Feb. 24, 2011

Dear Council members, Olga has asked me to send the attached updated GNSO schedule for the Saturday 12 and Sunday 13 March Working sessions in San Francisco. Please review carefully before the Council meeting tomorrow and send your comments to Olga Cavalli and myself. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group
by Stéphane Van Gelder Feb. 24, 2011

Feb. 24, 2011

Councillors, We have an item on our agenda for Thursday's meeting on the DSSA WG (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-24feb11-en.htm) I have been informed by the ccNSO that they are requesting we limit the number of volunteers from the GNSO to 10 for this WG. At the moment, we have 12 volunteers: Zahid Jamil (CBUC) Scott McCormick (CBUC) Mikey O'Connor (CBUC) George Asare-Sakyi (NCSG) Rafik Dammak (NCSG) Matt Serlin - (MarkMonitor, RrSG)) Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG) Greg Aaron (Afilias, RySG) Keith Drazek (Verisign, RySG) Don Blumenthal (PIR, RySG) Mike Rodenbaugh (IPC) Adam Palmer (CBUC) We will need to discuss how to limit our numbers on Thursday. In order to get that discussion going now, I would like to start by asking any of those who have volunteered if they would be willing to step aside in order to help us get down to the 10-volunteer maximum. Stéphane

2 4

FW: GAC Releases Scorecard on New gTLD Outstanding Issues
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 24, 2011

Feb. 24, 2011

GAC Releases Scorecard on New gTLD Outstanding Issues 23 February 2011 In preparation for the upcoming ICANN GAC - Board consultations in Brussels, the GAC has furnished a scorecard on outstanding issues related to the New gTLD Program. GAC indicative scorecard on new gTLD outstanding issues listed in the GAC Cartagena Communiqué<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf> [PDF, 328 KB] The scorecard is intended to serve as the basis of the GAC approach to the ICANN Board/GAC consultation meeting 28 February-1 March 2011. ICANN has also released a set of papers<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-21feb11-en.htm> describing these issues. Additional information on meeting topics and logistics are posted at:http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm and http://meetings.icann.org/board-gac-spring11. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

ICANN Board-GAC consultation in Brussels - important update
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 24, 2011

Feb. 24, 2011

Dear All, Please note: The webpage for the ICANN Board-GAC consultation in Brussels has been updated, to include the links for remote participation; the room in which the consultation will take place; and where to collect badges. http://meetings.icann.org/board-gac-spring11 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Item 3.2 of the agenda
by Olga Cavalli Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

Hi, if needed, I can provide a brief explanation about the Global Outreach Recommendations (item 3.2 of the agenda) before the motion is voted. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf This document was prepared by the OSC CSG Working Team, that I chaired. Regards Olga

1 0

GNSO questions regarding ALAC Statement on GNSO WG Guidelines
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

There have been several questions regarding the ALAC statement on GNSO WG Guidelines. I would be happy to elaborate during tomorrow's meeting if it is desired. The ALAC statement says, inter alia, "Specifically, we recommend that the GNSO involves active representation from other constituencies -- and in particular ICANN's standing Advisory Committees -- in policy development Working Groups, from the beginning. Such early involvement ensures widespread community investment in the policy process, especially from stakeholder representative groups that are strategically mandated by ICANN bylaws to be involved in policy. Early community participation in policy issues avoids the need to resort to corrective measures that are never as effective as "doing it right the first time". Such corrective measures, a number of which have proliferated to address deficiencies in the existing policy process, exact a significant cost in time delay, human resources, and monetary expense by both ICANN and third parties." I earlier said that I believe that the ALAC is supporting the current process, and suggesting that the GNSO be even more pro-active, specifically with the ACs which do not routinely participate. The ALAC has been active in such WG over the last several years, but the same cannot be said for the other ACs. History indicates that public calls for participation alone are generally not sufficient. This generated the request that I be more explicit if the ALAC is requesting changes in the final product. My initial interpretation of the ALAC statement was correct. The current outreach recommendation on page 6 of http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10de… says: Depending upon the scope of the Working Group and its intended subject matter, the following avenues could be explored: - Publication of announcement on relevant ICANN web sites, including by not limited to the GNSO and other Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee web pages. - Distribution of announcement to GNSO Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and/or other ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. - Circulation of announcement to organizations that are considered to have expertise/knowledge/interest in relation to the subject matter of the Working Group. The ALAC believes that more personal, one-to-one contact would be helpful in getting the attention of other groups when their input would be useful. General announcements do not attract sufficient attention. For instance, the GNSO Chair or the Interim WG Chair could reach out to the GAC Chair, or individuals known to be knowledgeable or interested. That being said, I am not sure this needs to be enshrined in the formal document. But if the GNSO feels that such enshrinement is necessary to make it happen, then perhaps it should be. Alan

1 0

FINAL Update for 24th Feb Council: Regarding work on measures for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice
by Rosemary Sinclair Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

Update Report on Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice There is support and interest in developing further developing ICANN's understanding and capacity to develop definitions, measure, monitor progress and achieve the commitments in the Affirmation of Commitments and the strategies outlined in ICANN's Strategic Plan in regard to: * Competition * Consumer Trust and * Consumer Choice The relevant Board Resolution (Cartagena) is: Resolved (2010.12.10.30), the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011. The context for this work by ICANN is the global recognition and growing importance that consumer protection is receiving from world regulators. There is acknowledgment that increased competition is a good approach to ensuring strong consumer safeguards. The issue of the timing of this work has been discussed (by email) with the Board, ICANN staff, ALAC, NCSG and the Chair of the Consumer Constituency. A number of GNSO Council members have indicated their interest in contributing to this work. ALAC has also indicated support for this work and the suggested approach. NCSG and the Consumer Constituency have indicated their support for this approach. The suggested next step is an Open Forum at the June meeting. It could be divided into three sections - competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. A group (GNSO, ALAC, GAC) could be set up to prepare the Forum. This group could invite proposals from speakers to present their views on each of those topics - perhaps 3 speakers per topic (10 mins each) with 10 mins for open mike comments - and aim to get a diversity of views. A speaker would also provide a short paper setting out their views on the topic which will be made public. All speaker proposals will also be made public. The Forum will create a body of useful material - that a staff person could turn into an initial paper for formal consideration by the GNSO.

2 1

FW: New gTLDS: Briefing Papers for ICANN Board-GAC Consultations
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

Updated: New gTLDS: Briefing Papers for ICANN Board-GAC Consultations http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-21feb11-en.htm Updated: 23 February 2011 21 February 2011 The Root Zone Scaling paper is now available and is posted below. In addition, a publication date of 21 February 2011 has been added to each of the 10 briefing papers posted with this announcement on 21 February 2011. There has been no content modification to any of these papers. ________________________________ In preparation for the ICANN Board-GAC consultation in Brussels on 28 February and 1 March 2011, ICANN has prepared briefing papers to address the 12 topics identified in the GAC's Cartagena communiqué as "...outstanding and require additional discussion between the Board and the GAC." As some of the topics were considered to overlap or be inter-related, more than one topic is covered in some of the briefing papers. The aim of the briefing papers is to identify the areas of difference which remain between the ICANN Board and the GAC on the nominated topics to focus the discussion on the issues in Brussels. These areas of difference have been identified through the GAC Principles on New gTLDs, GAC communications to the Board on the new gTLD program, and GAC communiqués. There have also been conference calls among ICANN Board, GAC and staff in the past few weeks to confirm the areas of difference. The papers also provide background and ICANN's position on the issues raised. Also attached to most briefing papers is an annex containing reference documents: the first is a summary of actions taken responding to GAC and public comments; and the second is a table which provides a chronological listing of GAC advice and comments on new gTLDs, responses provided by ICANN and key documents published on the topics. Note that the GAC is preparing its own scorecard on these same issues - highlighting GAC consensus positions on the New gTLD Program and where that position differs from the current implementation model. It is expected that the GAC and ICANN papers will differ. The primary purpose of the Brussels consultation is to get joint understanding of specific differences between the GAC and Board positions. Once that understanding is obtained, the parties can work toward a common position. These briefing papers are being posted for information only, so that interested participants will be able to have a sense of the issues to be discussed during the ICANN Board-GAC consultation. They are not being published for public comment. The briefing papers are as follows: Objection Procedures<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-objection-procedures-21f…>: includes requirements for governments to pay fees; procedures for review of sensitive strings; and early warning to applications-whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names) [PDF, 365 KB] Root Zone Scaling<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-root-zone-scaling-21feb1…> [PDF, 296 KB] Market and Economic Impacts<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-market-economic-impacts-…> [PDF, 316 KB] Registry-Registrar Separation<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-registry-registrar-separ…> [PDF, 452 KB] Protection of Rights Owners (trademark protections)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-protection-rights-owners…> [PDF, 276 KB] Consumer Protection Issues (malicious conduct)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-consumer-protection-mali…> [PDF, 262 KB] Law Enforcement Due Diligence Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-law-enforcement-due-dili…> [PDF, 291 KB] Post Delegation Disputes with governments<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-post-delegation-disputes…> [PDF, 409 KB] Geographic Names: use and protection of geographical names<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-geographic-names-21feb11…> [PDF, 780 KB] Legal Recourse for Applicants<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-legal-recourse-21feb11-e…> [PDF, 171 KB] Providing Opportunities for all Stakeholders<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-board-providing-opportunities-…> [PDF, 413 KB] The Agenda for the meeting is being finalized. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

1 0

FW: [council] Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

Forwarded on behalf of : Ken Stubbs Ken Stubbs wrote: Plz fwd on my behalf to the council... I believe it goes further than the issues you have surfaced here Jeff. ICANN compliance staff should have been involved much earlier in the process (Actually from the inception of the original WG). This would have allowed them to identify issues like they have outlined in the letter received recently (see attached letter) "early on" and made it easier for both the WG as well as ICANN staff to develop recommendations that were capable of being effectively implemented. At the same time it would have put ICANN on notice that there many be required in the future necessary changes in staffing, procedures as well as implementation methodologies needed to adapt to evolving DNS environments and their related issues. The kinds of issues pointed out here represent a "troubling" continuing "policy-development and management" pattern that needs to be addressed at the highest levels of ICANN management if we want to these processes to be more efficient and effective in the future. Ken Stubbs -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:58:51 -0500 From: Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: 'marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>' <marika.konings(a)icann.org><mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>, 'council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>' <council(a)gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> I have to say that this is in my view a disappointing response from ICANN compliance staff. Why is it only now after the process is complete and the recommendations have been through extensive public comment periods, a final report, a drafting team's final report and a couple of years, that we find out icann compliance cannot or will not do some of the requested activities? I believe public comment periods at a minimum should not only be for the community to make comment, but MUST also be used by ICANN staff to make their comments known. It cannot always be that icann staff waits until after something gets completely through a process to reveal for the first time that there is an issue. Too many people work too hard on these groups to do what they believe is right and in the best interests of the community only to find out after the entire process that ICANN staff does not want to do something or cannot do something. I realize this was not a PDP, but this issue was discussed by the PDP Work Team and this type of feedback is explicitly called out. I would like to hear from ICANN staff on the call tomorrow about what we can do moving forward to get this feedback earlier in the process. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 03:47 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council(a)gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations Dear All, Please find attached the response from ICANN's Compliance Department in relation to resolved #1 of the recently adopted motion on the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report (RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner). Pam Little, Interim Head of Contractual Compliance, is not available to participate in the Council meeting coming Thursday, but she is happy to take further comments / questions by email. In addition, she has indicated that she is available to discuss the response and any further questions in person with the Council during the weekend session at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco, if required. With best regards, Marika

1 0