March 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Board seat 14
by Stéphane Van Gelder April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

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 March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

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 March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

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 March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

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 March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

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 March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

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 March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

1 0

FW: Recommendations regarding Whois studies
by Glen de Saint Géry March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

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 March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

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 March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

1 0

FW: Recommendations regarding Whois studies
by Neuman, Jeff March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

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<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166

1 0

Motions for GNSO Council meeting 7 April 2011 at 20:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

Dear All, The motion and document deadline is today, 30 March, 2011. Due to the Wiki migration from Socialtext to Confluence our usual Wiki pages for the motions are not yet ready, so I have tried to capture the three motions below in plain text, correcting the couple of minor grammatical /typo errors. Please let me know if these are in order, and if so, please circulate the motions to your respective stakeholder/constituency membership in preparation for voting at the Council meeting on Thursday, 7 April at 20:00 UTC. Please let me know if I have missed anything or if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. MOTION RE: REVISION OF SECTION 5.0 STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES ===================================================================================================== Made by: Stéphane Van Gelder Seconded by:Adrian Kinderis WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008; WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in Section 5 Statements of Interest in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the OSC with completing a revision to improve Section 5; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 04 February 2011 a proposed revision of Section 5 that removes the requirement for Disclosures of Interest, and provides clearer guidance on the contents of Statements of Interest and on updating them in a timely manner; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the proposed revision of Section 5.0 at its 24 February 2011 meeting and initiated a 30-day public comment period on the document; WHEREAS, there were no comments on the proposed revision of Section 5.0 in the public forum and the final version is submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the revision of Section 5.0 as proposed by the OSC and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revised Section 5.0 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 procedures in the revised Section 5.0. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful Recommendations. 2. Motion to adopt the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) ============================================================================================= Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: Mary Wong and Jonathan Robinson Whereas the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 8 December 2010 to establish a drafting team to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010; Whereas a Drafting Team has formed and its members have developed a Charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; RESOLVED, The GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation as proposed (see hereunder); The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to send a request for volunteers to those entities identified in the Charter as eligible for member and observer status of the Standing Committee; The GNSO Council appoints [NAME] as the interim Chair of the Standing Committee, who will serve as the interim Chair until the Standing Committee has selected its own Chair. Charter - Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) General The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council: . On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems . On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed) The immediate goal of the OSC and PPSC is to develop: Recommendations to implement operational changes, and recommendations for all process changes needed to meet the requirements contained in the "Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group On GNSO Improvements" which are to be implemented with approval and under the guidance of the Council. It should be acknowledged that OSC and PPSC still have tasks to finish, possibly on different timescales. Expiry of their charters has therefore to be taken carefully into consideration by the GNSO Council. Nevertheless, since several OSC and PPSC recommendations have already been adopted and implemented and the practicability of some of them has raised concerns, it is advisable to kick off the SCI work immediately. Following the implementation of further OSC/PPSC recommendations the SCI will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of these new recommendations. This in consequence might mean that the OSC/PPSC and SCI will be coexistence for a certain period of time. Working method It is recommended that the SCI follows the "GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf (Approved by the GNSO Council on 16 March 2011)", as deemed appropriate The SCI is expected to carry out the activities identified in this Charter. In carrying out these activities, the SCI may opt to use sub-teams or work teams to carry out part of the tasks for which it may attract volunteers that are not members or observers of the SCI. However, the SCI remains responsible for reviewing and approving any recommendations, which are to be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information. For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. In order to have comprehensive information on the issue available this group is requested to provide the following information, if applicable: 1. Which group do you represent? (E.g. Council, WG.) 2. To which rules or processes implemented by the OSC or PPSC do you refer? 3. Please outline the problems 4. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? 5. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? One member of the group which submitted the request should - if not already represented on the SCI - be nominated as an observer to the SCI until the review of the issue in question has been completed. At its kick-off meeting the SCI should nominate a Chair and a Vice Chair from its membership. The Chair and Vice Chair are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise for example as a result of exercising another function or role within ICANN. Members of the Standing Committee (Primary and Alternate members) . 1 representative from each constituency/SG . 1 NomCom appointee Members of the Standing Committee may designate an alternate who can participate in the SCI deliberations in case of absence of the primary member. Only one of the two, primary or alternate, may take part in a consensus call. Observers of the Standing Committee . 1 representative from each constituency in formation . Liaison or an appointed representative from other ICANN Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees (as determined by the SCI as appropriate) . 1 observer representing the group that has submitted a request for review during the time that the request for review is being dealt with (provided that the group is not yet represented on the SCI) Staff Support The ICANN Staff assigned to the SCI will fully support the work of the committee as directed by the Chair including meeting support, document drafting, editing and distribution and other substantive contributions when deemed appropriate. Staff assignments to the SCI: . GNSO secretariat . 1 ICANN policy staff member Decision making Unless otherwise determined by the SCI members, committee decisions will be made by using a "full consensus" process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6). Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: . The issues dealt with and related status . Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council . An activity timeline 3 Proposed motion on the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs ====================================================================== Made by: Ching Chiao Seconded by: Rafik Dammak and Adrian Kinderis WHEREAS, The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907) The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; The JIG has issued an Initial Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm) and thereupon a Draft Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) and have incorporated the comments into, and has reached consensus on the Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs; The JIG recommendations are consistent with the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm) including the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) and the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) on the issue of Single Character IDN gTLDs; and, The JIG recommendations suggested implementable measures for the acceptance of Single Character IDN gTLDs. RESOLVED, The GNSO council approves the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs, and forwards the report to the ICANN board and staff for its implementation into the next version of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the JIG for their hardwork, and look forward to receiving further reports on "IDN Variant TLDs" and "Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs". Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motion to adopt the SCI charter
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

All, As a result of the drafting team's work I would like to make the motion attached to adopt the SCI charter (Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation). Any friendly amendments prior to the council meeting are welcome. According to the motion the council should nominate an interim chair to the SC. A second would be appreciated. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

4 4

Updated version of GNSO Operating Procedures posted
by Marika Konings March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

Dear All, For your information, an updated version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (v2.1) has been posted (see http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf) As resolved by the Council at its meeting on 16 March, ICANN Staff has incorporated the GNSO Working Group Guidelines in this updated version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP). To facilitate download and review by new and existing Working Group members, the annex that contains the GNSO Working Group Guidelines has also been made available as a separate download (see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf) In addition to the incorporation of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, a couple of cosmetic enhancements have been made (see overview below). A note will go out shortly to the different existing GNSO Working Groups to inform them about the recently adopted GNSO Working Group Guidelines and where these can be found. Furthermore, the PPSC is in the process of reviewing the summary of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which was prepared by ICANN Staff as requested by the GNSO Council. If you have any comments or questions, please let me know. Best regards, Marika Changes in GOP v2.1 * Added APPENDIX 1: GNSO Council Voting Results Table; * Removed placeholder Chapter 6.0 (GNSO Work Prioritization) and renumbered Chapter 7.0 to become Chapter 6.0; * Removed placeholder Chapters 8.0 (WG Guidelines) and 9.0 (PDP Procedures); * Added ANNEX 1 for Council-approved Working Group Guidelines; and * Added missing Bylaws reference links throughout the document.

2 1

Proposed Motion: JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs
by Ching Chiao March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

Dear Stéphane and all, I'd like to propose the following motion on *JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs*. This community working group is co-chaired by Edmon Chung (GNSO) and Jian Zhang (ccNSO). The final report is attached in this email (URL will be posted shortly). I would also like to invite Edmon to join the upcoming Council call. Thank you very much. Ching ============= WHEREAS, The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907) The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; The JIG has issued an Initial Report ( http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments ( http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm) and thereupon a Draft Final Report ( http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf) for public comments ( http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) and have incorporated the comments into, and has reached consensus on the Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs; The JIG recommendations are consistent with the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm) including the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report ( http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) and the GNSO Reserved Names WG ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) on the issue of Single Character IDN gTLDs; and, The JIG recommendations suggested implementable measures for the acceptance of Single Character IDN gTLDs. RESOLVED, The GNSO council approves the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs, and forwards the report to the ICANN board and staff for its implementation into the next version of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the JIG for their hardwork, and look forward to receiving further reports on "IDN Variant TLDs" and "Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs". =============

4 5

RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions
by Tim Ruiz March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

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 <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> > Date: Mon, March 28, 2011 2:59 pm > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "Kathy Kleiman > (kKleiman(a)pir.org)" <kKleiman(a)pir.org>, Don Blumenthal > <dblumenthal(a)pir.org>, "Steve DelBianco > (sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org)" <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 “Registrant Identification” 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

J. Robinson updated statement of interest
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

Dear Council Members, Please note that Jonathan Robinson has submitted an updated statement of interest which can be found on page http://gnso.icann.org/council/members and directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/robinson-soi-25mar11-en.htm Archived statement of interest: http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/robinson-soi-10jan11-en.htm Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Update on Whois studies discussions
by Liz Gasster March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

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 "Registrant Identification" 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

1 0

REMINDER Call for comments on The Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review Team Set of Issues close 6 APRIL 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-rt-issues The Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review Team Set of Issues Explanation/Background:The Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR RT) commenced its activities in October 2010 and held its first face-to-face meeting and interaction with the community session in Cartagena last December. In Colombia, the SSR RT drafted and issued Terms of Reference, which will guide the AoC mandated Team throughout its exercise: https://community.icann.org/display/ssrreview/Terms+of+Reference. In anticipation of the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting, the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team now wishes to solicit input from the community on a a set of issues [PDF, 16 KB]. This public comment box shall remain open for 45 days consistent with ICANN practices and will close on 6 April 2011. More importantly, the SSR RT intends to hold a full day face-to-face meeting at the Silicon Valley Meeting on Thursday, 17 March. The first item on the agenda shall be to collect the ICANN community's input on this set of issues. Please refer to the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting schedule for more information on the time and location of the exchange: http://svsf40.icann.org/sched-overview. All the Review Team's activities, governance and working documents are published on an interactive community wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=2950038. Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Olof Nordling | More information please Announcement | Comments | Add a comment : ssr-rt-issues(a)icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Call for comments on Draft Proposal for the Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs closes on 6 APRIL 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#idn-variant-tld Draft Proposal for the Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs Explanation/Background: The delegation and management of Variant TLDs remains an important issue. The ICANN community seeks to develop solutions to enable the delegation of Variant TLDs for the benefit of users in different regions. ICANN is publishing for public comment a Draft Proposal for an IDN Variant Issues Project [PDF, 393 KB] – a proposal for moving this work forward. We invite community comments concerning any/all elements of this proposal. Draft Proposal: IDN Variant Issues Project * English [PDF, 393 KB] * العربية [PDF, 1.20 MB] * 中文 [PDF, 1.02 MB] * Français [PDF, 1.31 MB] * Русский [PDF, 1.46 MB] * Español [PDF, 828 KB] * हिन्दी [PDF, 1.20 MB] Comments by 6 April 2011 at: idn-variant-tld(a)icann.org An archive http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-variant-tld/ of all comments received will be publicly available. Staff member responsible: Kurt Pritz Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Call for comments on Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) Operating Plan and Budget closes 4 APRIL 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2012 Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) Operating Plan and Budget Explanation/Background: Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) Operating Plan and Budget [PDF, 1.07 MB] FY12 Summary of SO/AC/SG Additional Requests [PDF, 48 KB] Translated versions of the Framework will be available in the following languages soon: * Español [PDF, 840 KB] * العربية [PDF, 1.15 MB] * Français [PDF, 1.23 MB] * Русский [PDF, 2.07 MB] * 中文 [PDF, 884 KB] The release of Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) Operating Plan and Budget [PDF, 1.07 MB] kicks off the operational planning process for ICANN, providing the community with their first look at the current and planned work, along with estimated financial resources required for FY12. There are several noticeable changes in this year's Framework. One is that it is in a presentation format to provide an overview of the proposed components that will evolve into a full Operating Plan and Budget for the coming year. The feedback and involvement of the ICANN community in the evolution from Framework to Operating Plan is critical in making this a workable and implementable budget. Second, this year there was early and targeted engagement between the ICANN staff and the leaders of the various SO's, AC's and SG's, establishing an agreed upon base of services and support that have been and will continue to be included in the yearly budget. Along with this came the opportunity for these constituencies to provide input regarding additional services and activities for fiscal year 2012. The schedule of this input is posted with the Framework in the public comment area. It is now up to the community to comment on this set of identified priorities and how they should fit into the FY12 plan. Last but not least, a shift in how the budget is viewed: from both an Operating and Fixed Cost standpoint as well as from planned and ongoing Project work costs. Core Operations is everything that is the daily work of ICANN(support, maintenance, services) and Projects are the short and long term activities and programs that are born out of community and /or Board requests, funded, and do reflect ICANN's Strategic Plan and Mission. The Framework will be discussed with members of the ICANN community at the Silicon Valley meeting in San Francisco this March, with feedback received through both the online public comment process as well as through individual meetings and conference calls with ICANN Supporting Organizations (SO), Advisory Committees (AC) and Stakeholder Groups (SG). A more detailed draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget will be posted by 17 May 2011. After additional public comment and feedback is received and synthesized, the budget will be sent to the ICANN Board for adoption at ICANN Public Meeting 41 in June 2011. Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Juan Ojeda | More information please Add a comment | op-budget-fy2012(a)icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Call fro comments on Proposed Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies closes 3 APRIL 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#newco-process-recognition Proposed Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies At the direction of the ICANN Board, the ICANN Staff has extended the 30-day public consultation forum until 3 April 2011 (see - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-18mar11-en.htm) Additional community comments concerning any/all elements of the proposed "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies" - including its procedures, sequences/steps, forms/tools, and evaluation criteria (see Document Links below) are welcomed. Background/Explanation: In June 2008, the ICANN Board of Directors endorsed a series of recommendations concerning how to improve the GNSO's structures and operations. A significant underpinning of those recommendations was an interest in maximizing participation in the GNSO and its policy development processes. Among the recommendations endorsed by the Board was that ICANN take steps to clarify and promote the option to self-form new GNSO Constituencies as provided in the ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 5(4). Recognizing that the Bylaws do not contain specific procedural guidance concerning how an interested party might formulate a new Constituency petition, the Board directed Staff in late 2008 to assist the community by developing a set of procedures, consistent with Bylaws principles, which a prospective organizer could follow in submitting a petition to become approved as a new GNSO Constituency. That process, acknowledged by the Board in October 2008, involved submission of (1) a "Notice of Intent to Form a New GNSO Constituency" (NOIF) followed by (2) a formal Petition/Charter. To date, five prospective Constituency groups have submitted formal New GNSO Constituency petitions in accordance with the process; however, the Board has yet to approve any of those applications. To address concerns it had regarding the clarity and timing of the original New Constituency petitioning procedure, the SIC embarked on this effort last year and, working with Staff, has completed development of a replacement "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies." The proposed process significantly modifies the original procedure and is designed to accomplish four goals: 1. Optimize the considerable time and effort required to form, organize, and propose a new GNSO Constituency by prescribing a streamlined sequence of steps and associated evaluation criteria that are objective, fair, and transparent - with ample opportunity for community input; 2. Delegate more authority to each GNSO Stakeholder Group in evaluating new Constituency proposals while maintaining the Board's oversight role; 3. Manage the entire process to a flexible, but specific and limited timeframe; and 4. Provide a partial set of criteria for use during the periodic review of the GNSO The SIC has directed Staff to open this Public Consultation Forum and invites the community to provide feedback on any/all elements of the process including its procedures, steps, tools/forms, and evaluation criteria. Please see the Forum Announcement for a broader discussion of the background leading to this Public Forum as well as a brief overview of the proposed process. Document Links: * Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies (including 3 Appendices) [PDF, 206 KB] * Process Flowchart [PDF, 146 KB] * Application for Candidacy (AFC) as a New GNSO Constituency [PDF, 165 KB] * Request for Recognition (RFR) as a New GNSO Constituency [PDF, 261 KB] Deadline and How to Submit Comments: At the direction of the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), the ICANN Staff has extended the original 30-day public consultation forum an additional two weeks until April 3, 2011 and invites additional community comments concerning any/all elements of the process including its procedures, sequences/steps, forms/tools, and evaluation criteria. To submit comments: See newco-process-recognition(a)icann.org To view comments: See http://forum.icann.org/lists/newco-process-recognition/ For a copy of the original public announcement of this forum please see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02feb11-en.htm Staff Responsible: Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director | More information please Updated Announcement | Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | newco-process-recognition(a)icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder: Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process comments close 1 APRIL 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-pdp-final-report Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process xplanation/Background: As part of GNSO Improvements, the Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team (WT) was tasked to develop recommendations for a new GNSO policy development process. ICANN's policies have wide-ranging impact on how domain names are handled in the gTLD environment, so the method of developing the policies matters. Following review of the comments received on its Initial Report and continued deliberations on remaining issues, the PDP-WT now publishes its Proposed Final Report which contains amongst others forty-eight (48) recommendations, an outline of the proposed new Annex A as well as a supporting document that is envisioned to be included in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures as the PDP Manual. Before finalizing its report and submitting it to the GNSO Council for its consideration, the Working Group is asking for your input. The public comment forum will be open until 1 April 2011. PDP-WT Proposed Final Report – http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-proposed-final-report-21feb11-en.pdf [PDF, 1.21 MB] PDP-WT Proposed Final Report – Executive Summary Only – http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-executive-summary-proposed-final-report… [PDF, 580 KB] PDP-WT Proposed Final Report – Executive Summary& Recommendations * English [PDF, 523 KB] * العربية [PDF, 403 KB] * 中文 [PDF, 1.86 MB] * Français [PDF, 821 kB] * Español [PDF, 515 KB] * Русский [PDF, 432 KB] PDP-WT Proposed Final Report – without annexes – http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-proposed-final-report-no-annexes-21feb1… [PDF, 998 KB] Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Marika Konings | More information please Add a comment: gnso-pdp-final-report(a)icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder: Call for comments Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group Proposed Final Report
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtp-b-proposed-final-report REMINDER: Call for comments Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group Proposed Final Report - closes 31 March 2011 Explanation/Background: The GNSO Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Policy Development Process Working Group was tasked to address five issues focusing on issues related to domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and "lock status". Following review of the public comments received on the Initial Report and further deliberations, the Working Group now presents its proposed Final Report which contains nine (9) recommendations to address the five charter questions it was tasked with. 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. Comments can be submitted until 31 March 2011. * IRTP Part B PDP Proposed Final Report [PDF, 734 KB] * IRTP Part B PDP Proposed Final Report - Executive Summary only [PDF, 320 KB] Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Marika Konings | More information please Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS Review Team - Call for Public Comment
by Glen de Saint Géry March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04mar11-en.htm WHOIS Review Team - Call for Public Comment 4 March 2011 4 March - 17 April 2011 The WHOIS Policy Review Team was launched in October 2010 in line with the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) provisions, section 9.3.1, which stipulates that: "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm The WHOIS policy Review Team (WHOIS RT) is composed of ten SO/AC representatives, two independent experts, one Law Enforcement representative, the ICANN President and CEO (Selector)'s designated nominee and the Chair of the GAC (Selector)'s designated nominee. For full reference, please consult: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/composition-4-en.htm. The WHOIS Review Team held its first formal face-to-face meeting in London, January 2011, and agreed a scope of work, road map, action plan and outreach plan. We submit these materials to the Community for review, input and comment. Further, on the substantive issues, the WHOIS Review Team's first tasks have been to define key terms from its 9.3.1 section of Affirmation of Commitments scope. The WHOIS Review Team would welcome public comment on the following issues: 1. Scope of Work and Roadmap https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+and+Roadmap+of+the+WH… 2. Outreach Plan https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Outreach+plan 3. Action Plan https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+plan 4. List of Key Definitions 1. Law Enforcement: "Law Enforcement shall be considered to be an entity authorized by a government and whose responsibilities include the maintenance, co-ordination, or enforcement of laws, multi-national treaty or government-imposed legal obligations." 2. Applicable Laws: "Includes any and all local and national laws that regulate and/or control the collection, use, access, and disclosure of personally identifiable information. It may also include other relevant legal obligations, including U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files. 3. Producers and Maintainers of WHOIS Data: 1. Producers: The individuals or organizations supplying contact data for inclusion into WHOIS data. 2. Maintainers: The WHOIS Review Team proposes to subdivide this category in to: * Data Controllers: Individuals or organizations that define the data to be collected, require its release, and govern its use. May or may not be directly involved in these functions. * Data Processors: Individuals or organizations engaged in the collection, storage, and release of data, according to the terms defined by the Data Controller. They do -not- determine the nature or use of the data that they collect or maintain. 4. Consumer: What is a "consumer"? There is no single universally agreed definition of 'consumer', and legal definitions in different jurisdictions vary widely. Some are narrow and limited to 'natural persons', while others are broader and include various types of organisations. The WHOIS review team has been considering a broad interpretation of the term 'consumer', as this would allow a broad range of perspectives to be considered by the review team. This appears to be consistent with the intention of the drafters of the AoC. In the global sense, "consumer" may mean: * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities. And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and WHOIS Service may mean: * Any consumer that acts as a Producer of WHOIS data (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and provider of WHOIS Service (e.g. Registrars), or User of WHOIS data (e.g. - individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data). Feedback request from community Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition. Is it too broad or too restrictive? In either case, how should it be changed? The WHOIS Review Team also welcomes general comments on the above issues, and any other issues which you would like us to consider at this early stage in our work. The ICANN San Francisco meeting takes place during our comment period and we will be reaching out to the Community. The WHOIS Review Team will hold a public session on Wednesday 16 March 2011 at 11 am - 12 noon in the Elizabethan A-C meeting room: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22173. We hold a full day face-to-face meeting on Sunday, 13 March which is public and silent observers are welcome to join us: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/21983. Finally, we will be meeting with Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees in San Francisco and Singapore ICANN meetings (and to arrange a meeting please contact Alice Jansen, alice.jansen(a)icann.org) To find minutes of our meetings as well as documents and work in progress, please check our public community wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues and documents. Your participation is essential to the success of the review, and your comments will be carefully considered. This public comment box will remain open for 45 days consistent with ICANN practices and will close on 17 April 2011. The WHOIS Review Team Emily Taylor, Chair Kathy Kleiman, Vice-Chair Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0