March 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Recommendations regarding Whois studies
by Neuman, Jeff March 30, 2011

March 30, 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