April 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Whois Studies
by john＠crediblecontext.com 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

Yes, friendly Berard > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Whois Studies > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Thu, April 21, 2011 1:28 am > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > John, Debbie, do you consider these friendly? > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 20 avr. 2011 à 21:09, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > All, > > Based on the rationalisation outlined below, I would like to propose that Council further defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study i.e. that the motion be amended as follows: > > �Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.� > > The rationale for further delay is that the small working group of volunteers has met twice recently to discuss the Whois Study #2, the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study. The intention was to have a revised Study 2 proposal for Council consideration in the 28 April meeting. They anticipated making revisions to reduce presumptively negative terminology while retaining the original study design to prove/disprove a hypothesis that natural persons were using privacy/proxy while also engaging in commercial activities. But the discussion revealed more extensive questions about study 2: > · First, they believe that the present Study 2 proposal could be easily amended to answer all four registrant identification questions posed by the GAC in their April-2008 recommendations. > · Second, they believe that the objective and results of Study 2 can be improved to generate broader and deeper analysis that would provide needed context for GNSO and ICANN in future work on these issues. > Their goal will be to submit Study 2 recommendations to the Council not later than 1 June, in time for the 9 June Council meeting. > This delay should not have any impact on Studies 3 & 4, which are under consideration in the motion that is to be acted on April 28. > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan > > > > > >

3 2

Fwd: SAC047 on Registry Transition published
by Stéphane Van Gelder 23 Apr '11

23 Apr '11

Councillors, FYI, please see the message below from SSAC Chair Patrik Falstrom on the gTLD registry transition processes model. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se> > Date : 23 avril 2011 06:40:44 HAEC > À : Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, "dryden.heather(a)ic.gc.ca Dryden" <Dryden.Heather(a)ic.gc.ca> > Cc : Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> > Objet : SAC047 on Registry Transition published > > FYI, SSAC has just released report SAC047, with the title "SSAC Comment on the ICANN gTLD Registry Transition Processes Model". > > http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac047.pdf > > It is, as the title says, comments on the registry transition process and policy described so far. SSAC reaches out to ICANN staff for further collaborative work on getting things right. > > Introduction: > >> In conjunction with the anticipated introduction of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) ICANN has published an Explanatory Memorandum to describe a model for the transition of a gTLD from one registry operator to another. The registry transition processes are intended to provide safeguards for registrants in cases where a registry ceases operation or in cases where a registry experiences prolonged technical outages. >> >> This SSAC Comment considers each of the circumstances where the transition processes are to be implemented. In particular, the SSAC considers the objectives, scope and application of the transition processes and recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum clearly identify risks that are mitigated by the proposed transition processes. The Comment asks whether matters such as emergency operator eligibility and regular auditing of emergency operators merit additional consideration. Given the real- time operational implications of a registry transition, the Comment pays particular attention to the security and stability of the Emergency Back-End Registry Operator Temporary Transition Process. Finally, the Comment asks that ICANN consider testing, retention of operational data from ex-registries, zone data escrow, and other information that will facilitate restoration of name resolution service for registrants. > > Patrik Fältström > Chair of SSAC > >

1 0

Call for Community Volunteers for IDN Variant TLD Case Study Teams
by Glen de Saint Géry 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

Dear Members of the Community, 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 around the world. After consultation with the community, ICANN outlines its approach to move forward by publishing the Final Proposal for the IDN Variant TLDs Issues Project ( http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-variant-tlds-delegation-20apr1…) and the Call for Volunteers ( http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-variant-tlds-call-for-voluntee…) The Project will undertake work to identify issues associated with the beneficial and safe delegation of IDN variant TLDs through six case studies include the following scripts: Arabic, Chinese (Traditional and Simplified), Cyrillic, Devanagari, Greek, and Latin. Each team will be comprised of the following: team coordinator, community representatives, linguistic experts, DNS and IDNA experts, security & scalability experts, policy experts, and registry/registrar operations experts. The call for volunteer document describes the details of expertise needed, as well as the volunteer selection process. Successful completion of the project depends on having team members with the right skills in each of the six case studies to perform the substantive work. Therefore ICANN, through its supporting organizations and advisory committees, and through its contacts with the international Internet community, is soliciting the participation of community volunteers in each of the six case study teams. Interested experts are invited to submit their résumé and an expression of interest statement demonstrating how they meet the qualifications for one or other of the expertise areas in a specific case study. Applications should be sent to idnvarianttlds(a)icann.org no later than 19 May 2011. Additionally, ICANN would welcome proposals from organizations interested in volunteering to provide local host facilities to each of the six IDN Variant Issues Project case study teams. Local host organizations are expected to provide meeting and other facilities to support the case studies work. However, it should be emphasized that it is not necessary to have a local host organization for a case study to proceed. Interested organizations should send an expression of interest to idnvarianttlds(a)icann.org no later than 19 May 2011. Warm regards, ICANN IDN Variant Issues Project Team P.S. The announcement is also available at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20apr11-en.htm.

1 0

Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
by Stéphane Van Gelder 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

Lesley, I agree with the principle you are stating but I think we once again find ourselves the victims of the lack of a clear definition of what these joint groups are exactly and what process they should function under. I suggest we pursue this discussion as I think it will be of use to both our SOs, with the aim of perhaps bringing together our issues/questions/suggestions on this during our traditional joint lunch in Singapore. Thanks and please pass on to the ccNSO community the GNSO's best wishes for a lovely Easter weekend. Stéphane Le 22 avr. 2011 à 14:37, Lesley Cowley a écrit : > Hi Stephane, > > Thank you for the suggestion. I think that it would strengthen the GNSO/ccNSO joint working group process if the final report had been signed off by both SOs before submission to the Board. > > Kind regards, > > Lesley > > Lesley Cowley, OBE > CEO > Nominet > Minerva House > Edmund Halley Road > Oxford Science Park > Oxford, OX4 4DQ > UK > > Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 > http://www.nominet.org.uk/ > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:03:33 +0200 > To: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk> > Cc: Edmon Chung <edmon(a)registry.asia>, 'Ching Chiao' <chiao(a)registry.asia>, 'Gabriella Schittek' <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org>, 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > Thanks Leslie. > > You had asked the GNSO Council to hold off on sending the report until these issues had been resolved. As this is now the case, would you rather the Council waits until the result of your May 10th vote before sending the report? > > Stéphane > > > > Le 22 avr. 2011 à 12:25, Lesley Cowley a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks to all for your discussions to understand the concerns that were being raised and to respond to them. >> >> I believe that the issue has now been satisfactorily resolved and on that basis, the report has been added to the agenda for the next ccNSO meeting on the 10th May. I hope that the Council will adopt the report at that meeting. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Lesley >> >> Lesley Cowley, OBE >> CEO >> Nominet >> Minerva House >> Edmund Halley Road >> Oxford Science Park >> Oxford, OX4 4DQ >> UK >> >> Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 >> http://www.nominet.org.uk/ >> >> From: Edmon Chung <edmon(a)registry.asia> >> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:57:00 +0800 >> To: 'Ching Chiao' <chiao(a)registry.asia>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >> Cc: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, 'Gabriella Schittek' <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org>, 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) >> >> Hi Ching, >> >> Yes we do. >> >> I believe we have clarified the issue with Patrik already. >> >> He was worried that the JIG report removed the cross-script confusability check. I assured him that the JIG report did not suggest anything of that sort. And that cross-script confusability check was not explicitly mentioned because it is not an issue specific to Single Character IDN TLDs (but affects all new gTLDs as well as TLDs in any length). >> >> The source of the misunderstanding came from the JIG report suggestion to remove the requirement for 2 character IDN TLDs to not be similar to any 1 character string in any script. The reason for the removal is due to the fact that the recommendation to introduce 1 character IDN TLD. If the requirement was originally there because all 1 character TLDs were prohibited, and therefore following the logic that any TLD string should not be confusingly similar with any prohibited string, it was required that all 2 character IDN TLDs (in fact any character for that matter) be not confusingly similar to any 1 character string in any script. We suggested to remove that because if it remained, it would have given rise to a situation where a 1 character IDN TLD application would be accepted while a 2 character TLD could be rejected because of similarity to that 1 character IDN TLD. Rather it should not be rejected and should be considered a contention set and follow the contention process. >> >> With this clarification, I believe there is no further issues, and there does not seem to be any need to update the JIG Final Report either. As staff is aware of the discussion, perhaps it could also be passed to staff in implementation to prevent similar misunderstanding. >> >> Edmon >> >> >> >> >> >> From: ching.chiao(a)gmail.com [mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ching Chiao >> Sent: April 20, 2011 9:18 AM >> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Edmon Chung >> Cc: Lesley Cowley; Gabriella Schittek; Glen de Saint Géry; Bart Boswinkel; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO >> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) >> >> Hi Edmon, Stéphane, All, >> >> Do we have an update on 1-character IDN TLD to address concern that ccNSO / SSAC has? >> >> If we are not doing anything now (i.e. forward the JIG recommendation to the Board given the new AG is out for comment) then it will put the GNSO council in awkward position. >> >> -- Ching >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Ching Chiao <chiao(a)registry.asia> wrote: >> Hi Stéphane, >> >> I am copying the email below to Edmon Chung, Co-Chair of the JIG. I am also very curious to learn from SSAC / ccNSO about their concern and how it was handled during the working process as both were involved in the JIG. I think with the report produced a general agreeable approach on handling 1-character IDN TLD, and the GNSO shall request the ICANN Board / Staff to incorporate this into the next version of AG (refer to the JIG suggested wording), while ccNSO could take their time on the IDN ccPDP process. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Best, >> >> Ching >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: >> Thanks Lesley, >> >> I am copying the Council on this email in order to pass your message on. Do you have any idea of the timeframe for you to get the desired clarification from JIG and SSAC? >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> >> Le 13 avr. 2011 à 12:38, Lesley Cowley a écrit : >> >> >> Hi Stéphane, >> >> I am advised that Patrick Fallstrom has raised some concerns with some of the language in the JIG Final Report, as member of the SSAC sub-group. >> >> In the circumstances, the ccNSO will ask for clarification from JIG and SSAC, before it takes any formal position/adopts the final report – would you be able to hold off the passing the report to the ICANN Board and staff whilst this is sorted please? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Lesley >> >> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:55:22 +0200 >> To: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk> >> >> Cc: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >> Subject: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) >> >> Leslie, >> >> At its meeting yesterday, the GNSO Council passed the following motion on the JIG. As per this motion, I wanted to inform you of the GNSO's approval of the JIG's final report, as it pertains to new gTLDs. >> >> Happy to answer any questions you may have. Please pass this on to the ccNSO as you see fit. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> >> Motion on the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs >> =========================================================== >> >> 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 as it pertains to the new gTLDs. >> >> Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ccNSO Chair. >> >> 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". >> >> >> >> -- >> Ching CHIAO >> Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. >> Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group >> Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG >> ===================================== >> Email: chiao(a)registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw >> Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 >> www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia >> www.facebook.com/ching.chiao >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ching CHIAO >> Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. >> Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group >> Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG >> ===================================== >> Email: chiao(a)registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw >> Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 >> www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia >> www.facebook.com/ching.chiao >> >

1 0

Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
by Stéphane Van Gelder 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

Thanks Leslie. You had asked the GNSO Council to hold off on sending the report until these issues had been resolved. As this is now the case, would you rather the Council waits until the result of your May 10th vote before sending the report? Stéphane Le 22 avr. 2011 à 12:25, Lesley Cowley a écrit : > Hi, > > Thanks to all for your discussions to understand the concerns that were being raised and to respond to them. > > I believe that the issue has now been satisfactorily resolved and on that basis, the report has been added to the agenda for the next ccNSO meeting on the 10th May. I hope that the Council will adopt the report at that meeting. > > Kind regards, > > Lesley > > Lesley Cowley, OBE > CEO > Nominet > Minerva House > Edmund Halley Road > Oxford Science Park > Oxford, OX4 4DQ > UK > > Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 > http://www.nominet.org.uk/ > > From: Edmon Chung <edmon(a)registry.asia> > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:57:00 +0800 > To: 'Ching Chiao' <chiao(a)registry.asia>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, 'Gabriella Schittek' <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org>, 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: RE: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > Hi Ching, > > Yes we do. > > I believe we have clarified the issue with Patrik already. > > He was worried that the JIG report removed the cross-script confusability check. I assured him that the JIG report did not suggest anything of that sort. And that cross-script confusability check was not explicitly mentioned because it is not an issue specific to Single Character IDN TLDs (but affects all new gTLDs as well as TLDs in any length). > > The source of the misunderstanding came from the JIG report suggestion to remove the requirement for 2 character IDN TLDs to not be similar to any 1 character string in any script. The reason for the removal is due to the fact that the recommendation to introduce 1 character IDN TLD. If the requirement was originally there because all 1 character TLDs were prohibited, and therefore following the logic that any TLD string should not be confusingly similar with any prohibited string, it was required that all 2 character IDN TLDs (in fact any character for that matter) be not confusingly similar to any 1 character string in any script. We suggested to remove that because if it remained, it would have given rise to a situation where a 1 character IDN TLD application would be accepted while a 2 character TLD could be rejected because of similarity to that 1 character IDN TLD. Rather it should not be rejected and should be considered a contention set and follow the contention process. > > With this clarification, I believe there is no further issues, and there does not seem to be any need to update the JIG Final Report either. As staff is aware of the discussion, perhaps it could also be passed to staff in implementation to prevent similar misunderstanding. > > Edmon > > > > > > From: ching.chiao(a)gmail.com [mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ching Chiao > Sent: April 20, 2011 9:18 AM > To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Edmon Chung > Cc: Lesley Cowley; Gabriella Schittek; Glen de Saint Géry; Bart Boswinkel; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > Hi Edmon, Stéphane, All, > > Do we have an update on 1-character IDN TLD to address concern that ccNSO / SSAC has? > > If we are not doing anything now (i.e. forward the JIG recommendation to the Board given the new AG is out for comment) then it will put the GNSO council in awkward position. > > -- Ching > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Ching Chiao <chiao(a)registry.asia> wrote: > Hi Stéphane, > > I am copying the email below to Edmon Chung, Co-Chair of the JIG. I am also very curious to learn from SSAC / ccNSO about their concern and how it was handled during the working process as both were involved in the JIG. I think with the report produced a general agreeable approach on handling 1-character IDN TLD, and the GNSO shall request the ICANN Board / Staff to incorporate this into the next version of AG (refer to the JIG suggested wording), while ccNSO could take their time on the IDN ccPDP process. > > Thank you. > > Best, > > Ching > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: > Thanks Lesley, > > I am copying the Council on this email in order to pass your message on. Do you have any idea of the timeframe for you to get the desired clarification from JIG and SSAC? > > Stéphane > > > > Le 13 avr. 2011 à 12:38, Lesley Cowley a écrit : > > > Hi Stéphane, > > I am advised that Patrick Fallstrom has raised some concerns with some of the language in the JIG Final Report, as member of the SSAC sub-group. > > In the circumstances, the ccNSO will ask for clarification from JIG and SSAC, before it takes any formal position/adopts the final report – would you be able to hold off the passing the report to the ICANN Board and staff whilst this is sorted please? > > Kind regards, > > Lesley > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:55:22 +0200 > To: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk> > > Cc: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Subject: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > Leslie, > > At its meeting yesterday, the GNSO Council passed the following motion on the JIG. As per this motion, I wanted to inform you of the GNSO's approval of the JIG's final report, as it pertains to new gTLDs. > > Happy to answer any questions you may have. Please pass this on to the ccNSO as you see fit. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > > Motion on the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs > =========================================================== > > 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 as it pertains to the new gTLDs. > > Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ccNSO Chair. > > 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". > > > > -- > Ching CHIAO > Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. > Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group > Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG > ===================================== > Email: chiao(a)registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw > Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 > www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia > www.facebook.com/ching.chiao > > > > > -- > Ching CHIAO > Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. > Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group > Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG > ===================================== > Email: chiao(a)registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw > Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 > www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia > www.facebook.com/ching.chiao >

1 0

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 28 April 2011 at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 28 April 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-28apr11-en.htm The agenda on the Wiki has the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+28+April+2011 The motions before Council can be viewed here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+28+April+20… This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-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 11:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:11:00 UTC - see below for local times (04:00 Los Angeles, 07:00 Washington DC,12:00 London, 13:00 Brussels, 19:00 Beijing; 21:00 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 * SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support * Whois * New gTLDs * Compliance 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 7 April 2011 Council minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf> –approved on 21 April 2011 Item 2: WHOIS studies (15 minutes) Refer to motion 1, deferred from previous meeting at IPC's request. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+2011 Refer to Motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+28+April+20… 2.1 Discussion 2.2 Vote 2.3 Suggestions on next steps for Whois Requirements (Avri Doria) Item 3: Pending Projects – Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) (15 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+28+April+20… 3. 1 Update on Pending Project: PPSC (Jeff Neuman) 3. 2 Discussion 3. 3 Vote Item 4: Motion on OSC Global Outreach Recommendations (10 minutes) Refer to motion approved by the Council at the 24 February 2011 GNSO Council meeting: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+24+February…. Specifically the following clauses: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the document submitted by the OSC http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… and directs Staff to post this document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on this document, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period. Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+28+April+20… 4.1 Discussion 4. 2 Vote Item 5: Meeting with ICANN's new Compliance Director (10 minutes) The Council invites, Maguy Serad, ICANN’s senior compliance director to provide both an overview of her Compliance philosophy and her 30-60-90 day plan for the department. 5.1 Presentation from Compliance Director (Maguy Serad) 5.2 Discussion and questions Item 6: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. 6.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair. 6. 2 Discussion 6. 3 Next steps? Item 7: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (15 minutes) 7.1 Update from co-Chairs (Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels). 7. 2 Discussion 7. 3 Next steps? Item 8: UDRP Issues Paper (10 minutes) 8.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG) (10 minutes) Refer to motion approved by the GNSO Council at the April 7, 2011 meeting https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+7+April+2011 The ccNSO Council has since asked that the GNSO Council not forward the report to the Board until it has had an opportunity to address a few issues it has with the report. In the meantime, it is suggested that the GNSO Council submit, as part of the DAGv6 Public Comment period, its comments on those parts of the JIG report that pertain to new gTLDs. 9.1 Discussion 9.2 Next steps Item 10. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 10.1 Possible topics for Singapore weekend GNSO sessions 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 (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. 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 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (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 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-5+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 12:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 21:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Re: [council] FW: Global Outreach Recommendations
by Stéphane Van Gelder 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

Jonathan, May I suggest a small amendment to your motion (see in red below)? I suggest tweaking the reference to the WT in the resolve clause as that is chartered by the OSC, not the Council. So my proposed resolve would read as follows: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council directs the OSC to ask the CSG-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate, or to make those changes directly as it sees fit. Thanks, Stéphane Le 20 avr. 2011 à 20:43, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > All, > > Please see below (and attached) for a proposed motion regarding public comments global outreach recommendations. > > I would very much appreciate a second for the motion. > > Many thanks, > > > Jonathan > > > > MOTION RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GLOBAL OUTREACH RECOMMENDATIONS > > Made by: Jonathan Robinson > Seconded by: > > WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements at: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, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations at: http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…; > > WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups; > > WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011; > > WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document “Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO” at: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf > > WHEREAS, the OSC recommendations describe a global outreach strategy to relevant members of the public, particularly non-English speakers and those from developing countries/regions; and for development of global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation both from current members of the ICANN community as well as potential members, particularly non-English speakers; > > WHEREAS, on 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the document by the OSC and directed staff to post the document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach; > > WHEREAS, ICANN Staff produced a Summary and Analysis document of the four comments received and posted it in the Forum at:http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach; > > NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: > > RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council directs the OSC and the CSG-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate. > > <Motion for Consideration -Public Comments on Global Outreach Recommendations.doc>

2 1

Re: [council] Whois Studies
by Stéphane Van Gelder 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

John, Debbie, do you consider these friendly? Stéphane Le 20 avr. 2011 à 21:09, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > All, > > Based on the rationalisation outlined below, I would like to propose that Council further defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study i.e. that the motion be amended as follows: > > “Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.” > > The rationale for further delay is that the small working group of volunteers has met twice recently to discuss the Whois Study #2, the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study. The intention was to have a revised Study 2 proposal for Council consideration in the 28 April meeting. They anticipated making revisions to reduce presumptively negative terminology while retaining the original study design to prove/disprove a hypothesis that natural persons were using privacy/proxy while also engaging in commercial activities. But the discussion revealed more extensive questions about study 2: > · First, they believe that the present Study 2 proposal could be easily amended to answer all four registrant identification questions posed by the GAC in their April-2008 recommendations. > > · Second, they believe that the objective and results of Study 2 can be improved to generate broader and deeper analysis that would provide needed context for GNSO and ICANN in future work on these issues. > > Their goal will be to submit Study 2 recommendations to the Council not later than 1 June, in time for the 9 June Council meeting. > > This delay should not have any impact on Studies 3 & 4, which are under consideration in the motion that is to be acted on April 28. > > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan >

1 0

Proposed Motion to terminate the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC)
by Neuman, Jeff 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

All, Please find enclosed a proposed motion to terminate the PPSC as discussed on the last council call. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm); 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 PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency, and the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP WT), which was chartered to make recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP; WHEREAS the WG WT has already completed its tasks; WHEREAS the PDP WT has worked diligently to develop the proposed new GNSO Policy Development Process and expects to deliver a final report soon; WHEREAS submitting the PDP-WT report to the PPSC would add additional delay to the completion and approval of the new GNSO PDP; WHEREAS a Standing Committee for Improvement Implementation (SCI) has been created and 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). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council hereby terminates the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the PPSC for their dedication and commitment. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests the Charter of the PDP-WT to be updated from 'the Policy Development Process Team shall be responsible for making recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP for PPSC review' to 'the Policy Development Process Team shall be responsible for making recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP for the GNSO Council's review'. RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council hereby instructs the SCI to amend its charter approved by the GNSO Council on April 7, 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104) to include "recommendations provided by the PDP-WT as approved by the GNSO Council" in addition to those recommended by the OSC and PPSC as approved by the GNSO Council. 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: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

2 1

Re: FW: [council] FW: Global Outreach Recommendations
by Olga Cavalli 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

I second this motion. Regards and happy easter to all. Olga 2011/4/20 Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>: > All, > > > > Please see below (and attached) for a proposed motion regarding public > comments global outreach recommendations. > > > > I would very much appreciate a second for the motion. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > MOTION RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GLOBAL OUTREACH RECOMMENDATIONS > > > > Made by: Jonathan Robinson > Seconded by: > > > > WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for > implementing the various GNSO Improvements at: > 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, including the Constituency > and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on > specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations at: > http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…; > > > > WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and > implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new > constituency groups; > > > > WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team > (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach > program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 > January 2011; > > > > WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the > document “Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden > Participation in the GNSO” at: > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf > > > > WHEREAS, the OSC recommendations describe a global outreach strategy to > relevant members of the public, particularly non-English speakers and those > from developing countries/regions; and for development of global outreach > programs aimed at increasing participation both from current members of the > ICANN community as well as potential members, particularly non-English > speakers; > > > > WHEREAS, on 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the > document by the OSC and directed staff to post the document for forty-five > (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum at: > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach; > > > > WHEREAS, ICANN Staff produced a Summary and Analysis document of the four > comments received and posted it in the Forum at: > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach; > > > > NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: > > > > RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council directs the OSC and the CSG-WT to review the > Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes > to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate. > >

2 1