March 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Board seat 14
by Stéphane Van Gelder 08 Apr '11

08 Apr '11

Councillors, As a reminder, bylaws dictate that "the Non-Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 14". A further requirement is that: "At least two months before the date specified for the commencement of the term as specified in paragraphs 1.d-g above, any Supporting Organization or the At-Large community entitled to select a Director for a Seat with a term beginning that year shall give the Secretary of ICANN written notice of its selection". As this pertains to Board seat 14, that term is scheduled to begin on June 24 this year. So the GNSO would need to be in a position to send our written notice by April 24. Stéphane

1 1

Confluence Wiki for GNSO Meeting Space
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Dear Councilors, Please note that on the home page: http://gnso.icann.org/ in the left navigation bar under WIKIS GNSO Council Workspace there is an updated Confluence Wiki link that accesses the GNSO Meeting Space https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Home and from there all the Council meeting agendas and motions can be accesses. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin… Please let us 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

RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions
by Tim Ruiz 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Perhaps, but the application/understanding of the data collected, or its usefulness, will rely largely on how each service applied 3.7.7.3 for the reveal aspect. Any data cannot be fully understood without it. Keep in mind that 3.7.7.3 is part of what the Registrar is required to include in its agreement with the registrant, and ICANN's compliance effort, at least today, ends with making sure it is appropriately included in Registrars' registration agreements. So Registrars may interpret it differently based on registrant expectations and local laws. IMHO, the ambiguity of how any resultant data would be used and/or interpreted would certainly cause hesitation on the part of many if not most proxy services from participating. I suggest that we don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to find this out. Why not just ask a significant sampling if they would or not? And although the issues are somewhat different for the relay part, the same applies. Why not just ask? I think you will get a pretty good idea of the cooperation level from that, for a lot less money. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions > From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> > Date: Tue, March 29, 2011 6:38 pm > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "cgomes(a)verisign.com" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "kKleiman(a)pir.org" > <kKleiman(a)pir.org>, "dblumenthal(a)pir.org" <dblumenthal(a)pir.org>, > "sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, > "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hi Tim, > > The reveal study RFP notes section 3.7.7.3 of the RAA (see p. 2 of the RFP, http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep10-en.htm ) and that many Proxy/Privacy services and registrars have developed various policies and procedures for handling relay and identity reveal requests.Â The purpose of the study is to document actual experiences with a broad sample of reveal requests that are made and the results of the study will describe what has occurred with each case as thoroughly as possible.Â If Proxy/Privacy services and Registrars are willing to assist in the study by helping the researchers determine if the request was received, relayed, responded to or otherwise acted upon, then that information will also be included in study results. > > If the P/P services and registrars do participate, and differing interpretations of the relevant RAA provision have a measurable impact on the results of the study, then that will be reported as well.Â But the primary purpose of the study is simply to obtain empirical data about what is actually occurring, and this is not contingent on potential differences of opinion about how parties define â��reasonable evidence of actionable harmâ��.Â > > I hope this is helpful.Â > > Thanks, Liz > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:22 PM > To: Liz Gasster > Cc: cgomes(a)verisign.com; kKleiman(a)pir.org; dblumenthal(a)pir.org; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions > > Liz, > > To what extent does the PP Reveal portion of the study rely on how > various parties define "reasonable evidence of actionable harm?" If > there is disagreement as to how that is defined by the various parties > in the study, how will that affect the data that may be produced? > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions > > From: Liz Gasster > > Date: Mon, March 28, 2011 2:59 pm > > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" > > Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" , "Kathy Kleiman > > (kKleiman(a)pir.org)" , Don Blumenthal > > , "Steve DelBianco > > (sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org)" , "Lisa > > Phifer (lisa@core > > > > All, > > > > Following is an update on discussions that have been occurring with several registries and others regarding pending consideration of the Whois studies. > > > > Staff has participated in three calls with Chuck Gomes, Kathy Kleiman and Don Blumenthal of the Registry Stakeholder Group and Steve Del Bianco of the Business Constituency to help the Registry Stakeholder Group understand some of the details of the pending Whois studies, and to provide further information so that they can decide which studies they might want to support, or whether modifications might be desired to mitigate any concerns. The plan has been for the RySG to develop possible amendments to the Whois study motion if needed, and have them reviewed by the RySG in time for them to be submitted to the Council list not later than Wednesday, 30 March for consideration in the 7 April Council meeting. While the discussions focused specifically on the RySG concerns, the group also noted that Steve and Kathy would communicate with CSG and NCSG members respectively as needed or helpful. > > > > As a result of these discussions, good progress was made on studies 3 and 4. Staff prepared a synopsis of the pre-study survey proposed for Study #4, and I have attached that document in the hopes that it will also be useful for the full Council in your deliberations. > > > > More time is needed for the RySG to discuss study #2, the â��Registrant Identificationâ�� Study and a follow up call will be scheduled to continue the discussions on this study. The RySG will decide in its meeting on Wednesday what it will recommend regarding studies 3 and 4. > > > > As these studies are of broad interest, the RySG reps asked me to convey the current status to all of you. > > > > Thanks, Liz > > > > > > > >

2 1

Recommendations regarding Whois studies
by john＠crediblecontext.com 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

I accept this friendly amendment. Cheers, Berard Motion made by John Berard & seconded by Debbie Hughes (With Friendly Amendment Proposed by the RySG) Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/). Before defining study details, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25…). On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml). The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a new WHOIS Hypotheses working group to prepare a list of hypotheses from the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The WG reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st…). On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a group of Councilors and constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies including those from the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3,http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903). On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois “Misuse” and Whois “Registrant Identification” Studies, finding that each study would cost approximately $150,000 and take approximately one year to complete. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en…). The Whois Registrant Identification study would gather info about how business/commercial domain registrants are identified, and correlate such identification with the use of proxy/privacy services. The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at least $400,000 for WHOIS studies (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#8). On 8-September-2010 the GNSO Council approved a resolution requesting staff to proceed with the Whois “Misuse” Study, which would explore the extent to which publicly displayed WHOIS data is misused,http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201009. On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Privacy and Proxy “Abuse” study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct…. This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy or privacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful acts with overall frequency of proxy and privacy registrations. This study was estimated to cost $150,000 and take less than a year to complete. On 11-February-2011, staff provided a feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Proxy and Privacy “Relay and Reveal” study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11f…, which would analyze relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domains to explore and document how they are processed. The staff analysis concluded that it was premature to conduct a full study, and recommended that a pre-study “survey” be conducted first, to determine if launching a full study is feasible to do. Resolved: Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en…). Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 28 April 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 20 April 2011. Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff amend the study to include the RySG proposed changes (insert link) and to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy “Abuse” study, as described in staff’s 5-October-2010 report and as amended, using the vendor selection process described in that same report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct…. Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy “Relay and Reveal” pre-study survey, as proposed in staff’s 11-February-2011 report,http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-rep…. Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize additional funding for FY 2012 for Whois studies, to make up the any shortfall of $130,000 between the amount of “at least $400,000” that was allocated for Whois studies in FY 2011 (and remains unspent), and the total amount needed to conduct the Whois Misuse Study ($150,000); the Whois Registrant Identification Study ($150,000) if subsequently approved; the Proxy/Privacy “Abuse” Study ($150,000); and the Proxy and Privacy “Pre-study” ($80,000), total of $530,000. Further resolved, in recognition that there is a substantial amount of coordination needed to direct this research, that staff be given the discretion to manage the studies serially or in parallel, with a goal of expediting completion of the studies as efficiently as possible.

1 0

REMINDER: EXTENSION of Public Comment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Presents Its Proposed Final Report -extended to 22 APRIL
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21feb11-en.htm Public Comment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Presents Its Proposed Final Report http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#pednr-p… Your Input Requested on Fourteen (14) Recommendations 21 February 2011 The GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Policy Development Process Working Group was tasked to address questions in relation to what extent registrants should be able to renew their domain names after they expire. At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate. Following review of the comments received on its Initial Report and further deliberations, the Working Group now presents its Proposed Final Report, which contains fourteen (14) recommendations to address the five charter questions it was assigned. Before finalizing its report and submitting it to the GNSO Council for its consideration, the Working Group is asking for your input on the proposed Final Report, especially the proposed recommendations. The public comment forum will be open for 45 days (until 7 April 2011 Extended to 22 April 22). For those interested, the PEDNR Working Group will present its report and proposed recommendations at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco (see http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22107 for further details). The Recommendations (abbreviated version) The full recommendations including rationales and other comments can be found in the proposed Final Report. Recommendation #1: Define "Registered Name Holder at Expiration" (RNHaE) to clearly identify the entity or individual that was eligible to renew the domain name registration immediately prior to expiration. Recommendation #2: Provide a minimum of 8 days after expiration when the RNHaE can renew, and disable normal operation during that time to attract the attention of the RNHaE. Recommendation #3: Changes to WHOIS after expiration must not alter the RNHaE ability to renew. Recommendation #4: All unsponsored gTLD Registries shall offer the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). Recommendation #5: If a Registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that supports the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP. Recommendation #6: Registrar website should state any fee(s) charged for the post-expiration renewal of a domain name. Recommendation #7: Registrars who have a web presence, shall provide a link to ICANN published web content providing educational materials with respect to registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle. Recommendation #8: ICANN, with the support of Registrars, ALAC and other interested parties, is to develop educational materials about how to properly steward a domain name and how to prevent unintended loss. Recommendation #9: The registration agreement and Registrar web site (if one is used) must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications. Recommendation #10: Registrar must notify Registered name Holder of impending expiration no less than two times. Subject to an exceptions policy, the timing of such notices is specified. Recommendation #11: Notifications of impending expiration must include method(s) that do not require explicit action other than standard e-mail receipt in order to receive such notifications. Recommendation #12: Unless the Registered Name is deleted by the Registrar, at least one notification must be sent after expiration. Recommendation #13: If at any time after expiration when the Registered Name is still renewable by the RNHaE, the Registrar changes the DNS resolution path to effect a different landing website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to expiration, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to recover the domain. Recommendation #14: Best Practice: If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, and delivery is known to have been interrupted by post-expiration actions, post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists. Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to pednr-proposed-final-report(a)icann.org until 7 April 2011 Extended to 22 April 2011. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#pednr-p… An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted: http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-proposed-final-report/ Further information: * PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report [PDF, 972 KB] * PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report – Executive Summary only o English [PDF, 376 KB] o العربية o 中文 [PDF, 600 KB] o Français [PDF, 472 KB] o Español [PDF, 397 KB] o Русский [PDF, 501 KB] * PEDNR PDP Initial Report [PDF, 1.02 MB] * PEDNR PDP Initial Report - Executive Summary o English [PDF, 128 KB] * PEDNR WG workspace Background At the ICANN Meeting in Cairo in November 2008, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. The ALAC request was submitted to ICANN policy staff and the GNSO Council on 20 November 2008. The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery [PDF, 422 KB] was submitted to the GNSO Council on 5 December 2008. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on 7 May 2009 and tasked a Working Group to answer the following charter questions: * Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; * Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; * Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; * Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); * Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group started its deliberations in July 2009. Staff responsible: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council meeting Agenda 7 April 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 7 April 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-07apr11-en.htm Please note that the Wiki agenda will have the latest updates. Wiki agenda https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+7+April+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 20:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:20:00 UTC - see below for local times (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, Friday 8 April 05:00 Tokyo; 06:00 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 * Whois * IDN's 1.2 Update any statements of interest Jonathan Robinson http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/robinson-soi-25mar11-en.htm 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * 16 March 2011 Council minutes - scheduled for approval on 9 April 2011 Item 2: Pending Projects - GNSO Toolkit of services (15 minutes) Update on this work: the "toolkit" refers to a list of basic services approved by the GNSO Council 17 Dec 2009 that will be made available to eligible GNSO organizations. Implementation proposals have been discussed and feedback requested by Feb 15, 2011. Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list:L http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2. 1 Update on work, indication of proposed next steps - Rob Hoggarth, ICANN Staff 2. 2 Discussion 2. 3 Next steps Item 3: WHOIS studies (20 minutes) Refer to motion 1, deferred from previous meeting. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+2011 3.1 Discussion 3.2 Vote 3.3 Update on Whois Requirements (Liz Gasster) Item 4: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) (20 minutes) Refer to motion 2 , deferred from previous meeting. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+2011 4.1 Discussion 4.2 Vote Item 5: Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SC-DT) (15 minutes) The GNSO Improvements Standing Committee Drafting Team is presenting its charter for the Council approval. Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+2011 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Vote Item 6: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG) (15 minutes) The Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group is tasked with identifying IDN issues of common interest to the ccTLD and gTLD communities and proposing methodology to resolve them. It is presenting its report on single character IDNs for the Council approval. Refer to: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jig-final-report-30mar11-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jig-final-report-30mar11-en.pdf%20> Refer to motion 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+2011 6.1 Discussion 6.2 Vote Item 7: GNSO Working Group Guidelines (10 minutes) Information Item. http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf. Refer to motion 4 from March 16 meeting https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_march_motions and in particular the following resolve clauses: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as proposed by the PPSC include link and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the GNSO Working Group Guidelines into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. RESOLVED, to the extent practical and feasible, each existing Working Group shall incorporate these Working Group Guidelines into their activities. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the WG-WT and PPSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. 7.1 Update from Staff on when the new version of the Operating Procedures will be ready. (Marika Konings) 7.2 Instruct Staff to inform all current GNSO WGs of the adoption of the new guidelines so that they can incorporate them (see 3rd resolve clause above). 7.3 As per resolved further clause above, the Council thanks the WG and declares that it is now closed. Instruct Staff to remove the PPSC WG-WT from the Pending Projects list. 7.4 Discussion Item 8: Revision to GNSO Council Operating Procedures Section 5.0: Statements of Interest (10 minutes) OSC Proposed Revision to Section 5.0: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en… Refer to: resolution 24 February meeting: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_february_motions See public comments received (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-5) as well as summary & analysis provided by staff Refer to Council discussion during Feb 24 meeting. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-03feb11-en.htm Refer to motion 5 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+2011 8.1 Summary of revisions to Section 5.0 (Julie Hedlund) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Vote Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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 March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-5+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 00:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 06:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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

Recommendations regarding Whois studies
by john＠crediblecontext.com 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

1 0

FW: Recommendations regarding Whois studies
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Dear Council Members, Please note that the document in the attachment, "Whois Studies Recommendations to the Registries Stakeholder Group" is posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois and can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-recommendations-rysg-29mar11… Thank you. Kind regards, Glen From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff All, As discussed during the San Francisco Council meeting, members of the RySG met with Liz Gassner and Steve Delbianco to work on the issues that the RySG had with both the current WHOIS resolution motion put on the table by John Berard and the descriptions put out by ICANN staff on the actual WHOIS studies. We are happy to report that we are able to provide the following revised motion on the WHOIS studies which, with these changes, we are now able to support. We are proposing that these changes be accepted as a friendly amendment. I have copied a redline of the motion in this e-mail with strikethroughs representing deletions and red italic text for additions. The attached document discusses the rationale for the changes and provides the changes that we would like to see made to the description of the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study. These changes were discussed with Liz and Steve Delbianco as well. We truly hope that this demonstrates our commitment to making progress on these issues and that you find these changes acceptable. Best regards, Jeff Neuman +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Motion made by John Berard & seconded by Debbie Hughes (With Friendly Amendment Proposed by the RySG) Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/). Before defining study details, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25…). On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml). The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a new WHOIS Hypotheses working group to prepare a list of hypotheses from the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The WG reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st…). On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a group of Councilors and constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies including those from the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903). On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois "Misuse" and Whois "Registrant Identification" Studies, finding that each study would cost approximately $150,000 and take approximately one year to complete. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en…). The Whois Registrant Identification study would gather info about how business/commercial domain registrants are identified, and correlate such identification with the use of proxy/privacy services. The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at least $400,000 for WHOIS studies (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#8). On 8-September-2010 the GNSO Council approved a resolution requesting staff to proceed with the Whois "Misuse" Study, which would explore the extent to which publicly displayed WHOIS data is misused, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201009. On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct…. This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy or privacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful acts with overall frequency of proxy and privacy registrations. This study was estimated to cost $150,000 and take less than a year to complete. On 11-February-2011, staff provided a feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Proxy and Privacy "Relay and Reveal" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11f…, which would analyze relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domains to explore and document how they are processed. The staff analysis concluded that it was premature to conduct a full study, and recommended that a pre-study "survey" be conducted first, to determine if launching a full study is feasible to do. Resolved: Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en…). Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 28 April 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 20 April 2011. Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff amend the study to include the RySG proposed changes (insert link) and to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, as described in staff's 5-October-2010 report and as amended, using the vendor selection process described in that same report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct…. Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Relay and Reveal" pre-study survey, as proposed in staff's 11-February-2011 report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11f…. Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize additional funding for FY 2012 for Whois studies, to make up the any shortfall of $130,000 between the amount of "at least $400,000" that was allocated for Whois studies in FY 2011 (and remains unspent), and the total amount needed to conduct the Whois Misuse Study ($150,000); the Whois Registrant Identification Study ($150,000) if subsequently approved; the Proxy/Privacy "Abuse" Study ($150,000); and the Proxy and Privacy "Pre-study" ($80,000), total of $530,000. Further resolved, in recognition that there is a substantial amount of coordination needed to direct this research, that staff be given the discretion to manage the studies serially or in parallel, with a goal of expediting completion of the studies as efficiently as possible. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166

1 0

Draft GNSO Council minutes 16 March 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Dear Council Members, Attached please find the draft GNSO Council minutes for the Open Council Meeting in san Francisco on 16 March 2011. Please let me know if you would like any changes to be made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#mar on Saturday, 9 April 2011. Thank you very much. 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

RE: [council] FW: Recommendations regarding Whois studies
by john＠crediblecontext.com 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

1 0