February 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft minutes of the Council meeting 3 February 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 12, 2011

Feb. 12, 2011

Dear All, Attached please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 3 February 2011. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#feb on Tuesday, 22 February 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Rec6: International treaty and National law
by Ching Chiao Feb. 12, 2011

Feb. 12, 2011

Dear Chair, Councilors, My saturday morning starts with a finding on Rec6 :-) If the following was discussed before or the argument is misleading then I apologize. I am not an International treaty / law expert BTW. I came across the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" and "Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women " for other issues. In the Rec6 report there's full consensus support to add relevant international treaties as examples. Now, the question comes to -- how these international treaties are accountable in jurisdiction of each country / territory. Here's a very preliminary survey: -- Rights of the Child http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm: signed and ratified by 192 UN Member States. U.S. signed but not ratified by the Congress. -- Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_…: not ratified in U.S. -- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and…: not ratified in U.S. Of course, Kyoto Protocol ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories) and Convention of Cluster Munitions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions) are another two interesting facts. On the Rec6 we see: 2.5 If individual governments have objections based on contradiction with specific national laws, such objections may be submitted through the Community Objections procedure using the standards outlined in AGv4. 3.3 National law not based on international principles should not be a valid ground for an objection. This could lead to several scenario: -- Board may end of making invalid decision if referring to International treaty / law. -- Gov't representative in GAC may or may not fully aware of or have expertise in relevant International treaty / law -- Perspective government may NOT ratify / recognize the approved "Limited Public Interest" -- Having perspective government to rafity / recognize the approvied "Limited Public Internet" would fall into lengthy bureaucratic process If my observation is somehow correct, then in Brussels we could only witness an open-end discussion. I understand that it is not, but alike, the process of forming a new International treaty. Let me stop here and please feel free to comment. Regards, Ching -- Ching CHIAO Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG ===================================== Email: chiao(a)registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia www.facebook.com/ching.chiao

1 0

Update on WHOIS studies including staff analysis of WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal study
by Liz Gasster Feb. 12, 2011

Feb. 12, 2011

All, Attached please find two documents related to the WHOIS studies project, including staff analysis of the costs and feasibility to conduct a WHOIS Privacy and Proxy "Relay and Reveal" study. This is the staff analysis on the last of 4 study areas that the Council requested be scoped in March 2009. I will be providing a short overview of this analysis on the upcoming 24 February GNSO Council call. The second document is an update on all of the studies in chart form. Here are the highlights: 1. WHOIS "Misuse" study - Staff is negotiating a contract with an independent research firm to do this study and we hope the research will begin in March. 2. WHOIS "Registrant Identification" study - awaiting Council decision 3. WHOIS "Proxy and Privacy Services Abuse" study - awaiting Council decision 4. WHOIS "Proxy and Privacy Services Relay and Reveal study - analysis attached. We did not receive any responses to the RFP, we did solicit and receive other input, explained further in the report, and based on that input we are proposing a pre-study survey. Note that a WHOIS Service Requirements Inventory Report was completed in July, 2010 and is awaiting Council discussion and next steps (please see link to study #6 in the chart that is attached). Links to these documents will be added/updated on Monday here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ . Please let me know if you have any questions or would like additional information. Thanks, Liz

1 0

Fwd: Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by IANA Post Exhaustion - Background Report
by Stéphane Van Gelder Feb. 11, 2011

Feb. 11, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> > Date : 11 février 2011 17:47:15 HNEC > À : "'ceo(a)auda.org.au'" <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, "'junsec(a)wide.ad.jp'" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, Raul Echeberria <raul(a)lacnic.net>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "paf(a)cisco.com" <paf(a)cisco.com>, Louie Lee <louie(a)louie.net> > Cc : Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, ASO Secretariat <secretariat(a)aso.icann.org> > Objet : Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by IANA Post Exhaustion - Background Report > > To Chairs of ICANN SOs and ACs, > > FYI and for information to your membership: > > Attached is a Background Report for the “Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by IANA Post Exhaustion ” currently under discussion in the addressing community. > > This background report will soon be posted on the ICANN website. > > Very best regards > Olof > > ------------------- > Olof Nordling > Director, Services Relations > ICANN > 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 > B-1040 Brussels, Belgium > Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 > www.icann.org > >

1 0

GNSO Council meeting Agenda 24 February 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 11, 2011

Feb. 11, 2011

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 24 February 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-24feb11-en.htm Please consult the Wiki page for the latest updates: Wiki link: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_24_february_2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-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 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, Friday 25 February 00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 Melbourne 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 of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest • Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding “any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party’s judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion” in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: “Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue.” The main issues for this meeting are: * GNSO Project Decision Making * GNSO Improvements * Registration Abuse Policies * DNS Security and Stability * Whois * Cross Community Working Groups * New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 3 February 2011 Council minutes – Approved on 22 February 2011. Item 2: Pending Projects – Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP Working Group (IRTP Part B) (15 minutes) Update on Working Group's progress. Working Group (WG) was started on April 16, 2009. WG is chaired by Michele Neylon. Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf. 2.1: Update on WG – Michele Neylon, WG Chair. 2.2: Discussion 2.3: Next steps Item 3: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) (20 Minutes) 3.1 Approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest * Refer to motion https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_february_motions (motion 1) * Discussion * Vote 3.2 Updating OSC Recommendation for Proxies in the GNSO Operating Procedures * Bill Drake has volunteered to lead * Update (Bill Drake) * Discussion * Next steps 3.3 Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines * See resolution 13 Jan meeting http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201101 * See public comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/) as well as summary & analysis provided by staff * Discuss next steps - in light of comments received, should GNSO Working Guidelines be adopted or are further modifications required? If further modifications are required, should these be made by the GNSO Council, or should the comments be referred back to the PPSC for consideration? Item 4 : Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. 4.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Next steps? Item 5: WHOIS studies (20 minutes) A new WHOIS studies report has been posted <insert link>. This includes the staff analysis on the last of the 4 WHOIS studies that the Council asked staff to scope for cost and feasibility (this is the study on "Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal"). The Council must now decide which of the remaining 3 studies (Registrant Identification, Proxy and Privacy "abuse" and this Relay and Reveal study) staff should initiate. 5.1 Update on WHOIS studies (Liz Gasster) 5.2 Discussion Item 6: Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG) (10 minutes) At their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting ALAC, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the GAC and the NRO acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global DNS. To this end these SOs and ACs agreed to establish a joint DNS Security and Stability Working Group (DSSA-WG). Refer to DSSA-WG draft charter http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf Current GNSO 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) 6.1 Update from WG (Julie Hedlund) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Selection of GNSO co-chair for the WG. Item 7: Discussion on Community Working Groups (15 minutes) Several Community Working Groups (CWG) have been started recently. How should the GNSO approach such groups? Current CWG in which the GNSO is involved are: 7.1 Discussion. Item 8: Follow-up on RAP recommendations (10 minutes) Refer to motion passed during 3 February meeting<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102 More specifically, Resolve clause 1: 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. 8.1 Feedback from ICANN Compliance Staff. 8.2 Discussion RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP. 8.3 Staff update, expected delivery date for Issues Report (XXX). RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests 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. 8.4 Staff update, expected delivery date for Discussion Paper (XXX) Item 9: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) 9.1 Update from Staff on goals, expected outcomes and organization of GAC/Board February meeting in Brussels (Staff). 9.2 Status of San Francisco planning (Olga Cavalli). 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 (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, 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 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+0DST 07:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+0DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 02:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: OSC approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest
by Stéphane Van Gelder Feb. 11, 2011

Feb. 11, 2011

Councillors, Please see below the message from Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, on the redrafting of the procedures for SOIs. I want to thank everyone that worked on these, both on the OSC and the Council. I will be submitting a motion for the Council to approve these recommendations in the next few minutes. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> > Date : 4 février 2011 16:21:31 HNEC > À : Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : <gnso-osc(a)icann.org> > Objet : OSC approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest > > (To forward) > > Dear Council, > Further to adoption by the OSC I attach a revised set of procedures for statements of interest (SOI). > These changes follow an OSC meeting in Cartagena and iterative edits within the OSC. > The key changes from the earlier policy are: > - just SOIs not statements AND declarations > - simpler rules and guidance > - obligation on the Chair (of Council or any GNSO group) to remind participants to update SOIs. > > I hope these strike the right balance between efficiency and transparency. > Do let me know otherwise. > > The attached are now recommended for Council adoption. > > > Philip Sheppard > OSC Chair > >

2 3

Fwd: [council] Call for Volunteers to ccNSO Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories
by Stéphane Van Gelder Feb. 11, 2011

Feb. 11, 2011

Councillors, Ching Chiao has volunteered for the role of liaison to this group for the GNSO Council. If anyone objects, please say so by COB Thursday February 11. If no objections are received, I will inform the ccNSO that Ching is confirmed as our liaison to this group. Thanks, Stéphane

3 4

Fwd: Comments on the Rec6 Community Working Group Report from GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencie
by Stéphane Van Gelder Feb. 11, 2011

Feb. 11, 2011

Councillors, Please see below a note I have just sent to Peter with regards to GNSO group comments on the Rec6 CWG report. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date : 11 février 2011 12:04:51 HNEC > À : peter.dengate-thrush(a)icann.org > Cc : Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> > Objet : Comments on the Rec6 Community Working Group Report from GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencie > > Dear Peter, > > Pursuant to the GNSO Council’s Cartagena resolution, the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were asked to submit their comments to the Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation #6. > > On behalf of the GNSO Council, I am pleased to submit for the Board’s review and consideration, the attached compilation of the comments received in response to this resolution. > > Best Regards, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Chair > GNSO Council > >

1 0

Summary and analysis of comments - GNSO WG Guidelines
by Marika Konings Feb. 11, 2011

Feb. 11, 2011

Dear All, Please find attached the summary and analysis of the comments received on the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines. To view the comments in their entirety, please see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Motion and Document deadline - Wednesday 16 February for Council meting on 24 February 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 10, 2011

Feb. 10, 2011

Dear Council Members, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 24 February 2011 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 16 February 2011. Please see the calendar page for due dates for the rest of the year: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Please note that the pending project list is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf This will be updated before the Council meeting on 24 February 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0