May 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Call for Expertise for a drafting team to develop a Whois Service Requirements survey
by Glen de Saint Géry May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

Dear All, http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19may11-en.htm Invitation for volunteers to form a Drafting Team to develop a survey to estimate the level of agreement that the conclusions and assumptions in the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010 have in the ICANN community. See: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-… . The goal of the Drafting Team would be to assist staff in developing the format, questions, response scale and scope of the survey. In May 2009 by the GNSO Council requested that staff prepare a compilation of potential future requirements for WHOIS service, based on current requirements and a review of previous GNSO WHOIS policy discussions. This resolution reflected increasing community concerns that the current WHOIS service is deficient in a number of ways, including data accuracy and reliability, as well as in other technical areas noted in recent SSAC reports, such as accessibility and readability of WHOIS contact information in an international environment. The report is a compendium of potential technical requirements and makes no policy recommendations. Some of the potential technical requirements included in the report are the following: a mechanism to find authoritative WHOIS servers; structured queries; a standardized set of query capabilities; a well-defined schema for replies; standardized error messages; improved quality of domain registration data; internationalization; security elements; thick vs. thin WHOIS; and a Registrar abuse point of contact. Staff published a first draft of the report 26 March 2010, solicited input from SOs and ACs, and posted a draft final report reflecting SO and AC input on 31 May. Thus, on 19 May the GNSO Council asked ICANN staff to begin the process of seeking community volunteers Drafting Team for the purpose of developing a survey of views. This invitation is extended to all members of the ICANN community. We urge you to forward to this to all members of the community who may be interested in participating. Expertise in the technical aspects of gTLD Whois, and background on the history of gTLD Whois policy development, would be particularly useful to this group. Please contact the GNSO Council Secretariat at gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> by 01 June 2011 if you are interested in joining the Drafting Team. Please contact Liz Gasster at liz.gasster(a)icann.org<mailto:liz.gasster@icann.org> if you have any questions about the report or the work of this group. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

IREMINDER: Invitation pre-Singapore Policy Update Webinar
by Glen de Saint Géry May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

PRE-SINGAPORE ICANN POLICY UPDATE WEBINAR INVITATION In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Singapore remotely or in person, you're invited to a quickreminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Wednesday 8 June at 19.00 UTC and Thursday 9 June at 12.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) andAddress Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: - - Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Issue Report (GNSO) - - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (GNSO) - - Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (GNSO) - - Recent WHOIS work - - Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories (ccNSO) - - Framework of Interpretation Working Group for the delegation and re delegation of ccTLDs (ccNSO) - - Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group - - Global policy for handling recovered IPv4 address space (ASO) The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Wednesday at 19.00 UTC or Thursday at 12.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 19 May 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 19 May, 2011 on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#may http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110519-en.mp3 Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Expertise for a drafting team to develop a Whois Service Requirements survey
by Liz Gasster May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

All, As requested, the following is some draft language that we might include in an invitation to participate on the drafting team to develop the details of a Whois Service Requirements survey. Please feel free to edit or modify. "Expertise in the technical aspects of gTLD Whois, and background on the history of gTLD Whois policy development, would be particularly useful to this group." Thanks, Liz

1 0

JAS motion
by Rafik Dammak May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

Hello, I would like to submit this motion regarding the JAS milestone report. Regards Rafik Whereas: The GNSO council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Working Group released it Milestone Report posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the orignal charter and requested an update to the Working Groups charter, and The GNSO and ALAC, separately, renewed the Working Groups charter with additional work item in February 2011, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the work as defined in its extended charter and published a second milestone report ( https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 8 May 2011 covering those chartered items ( http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled JAS Milestone Report. and The GNSO council does not wish to delay the start of the new gTLD application process, and The GNSO council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council request that the report be put out for community review as soon as possible, The GNSO Council approves forwarding the second JAS Milestone Report to the ICANN board for review and approval, and The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on implementation of the recommendation pending Board approval, and The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may arise in the upcoming review by the community, the Board and from the Staff in the process of implementing the proposals, and That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review process. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.

4 4

Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
by Ching Chiao May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

Same here, for B. Ching Chiao On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Jonathan Robinson < jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > Sorry for the delay. Just back from the US. > > > > I’ll go for B for the same reason as Jeff outlines below. > > > > Jonathan > > > > *From:* owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff > *Sent:* 17 May 2011 16:54 > *To:* 'stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com'; 'tim(a)godaddy.com' > *Cc:* 'owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org'; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' > > *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant > Support Second Milestone Report > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence > on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call > questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the > note. > > Thanks. > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > Vice President, Law & Policy > NeuStar, Inc. > Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz > > > > > *From*: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > *Sent*: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM > *To*: tim(a)godaddy.com <tim(a)godaddy.com> > *Cc*: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Council > GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Subject*: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant > Support Second Milestone Report > > > Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan, > > > > This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A): > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD > Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the > other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it > has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move > forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and > hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as > possible. > > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates > the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in > submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. > > > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the > Board. > > > > Best regards, > > Stephane van Gelder > > GNSO Council Chair > > > > Or (this my version B): > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD > Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the > other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it > has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move > forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and > hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as > possible. > > > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the > Board. > > > > Best regards, > > Stephane van Gelder > > GNSO Council Chair > > > > As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give > ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on > either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send. > > > > Is that acceptable to everyone? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > > Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > > > > No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering > process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter > should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are > being formed. > > > Tim > ------------------------------ > > *From: *Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > *Sender: *owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > *Date: *Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 > > *To: *Council GNSO<council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant > Support Second Milestone Report > > > > Councillors, > > > > Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to > the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO. > > > > Thanks Mary for providing this draft. > > > > Please let me have your comments. > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > > Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> a > écrit : > > > > Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; > there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it. > > > > We suggest the following draft: > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD > Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the > other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it > has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move > forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and > hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as > possible. > > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates > the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting > its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. > > > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the > Board. > > > > Best regards, > > Stephane van Gelder > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > *Mary W S Wong* > > *Professor of Law* > > *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* > > *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP* > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301 > USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: > http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on > the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: > http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > >>> > > *From: * > > Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > *To:* > > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Council GNSO < > council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > *Date: * > > 5/14/2011 5:18 AM > > *Subject: * > > [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second > Milestone Report > > Thanks Olivier. > > > > GNSO Council, FYI. > > > > A good weekend to all. > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > > Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > > > > Dear Stéphane, > > please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board > including ALAC comments. > Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its > contents. > Have a good week-end! > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > -------- Message original -------- > > *Sujet:* > > Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone > Report > > *Date :* > > Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700 > > *De :* > > ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > *Pour :* > > Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org> <secretary(a)icann.org> > > *Copie à :* > > ocl(a)gih.com <ocl(a)gih.com> <ocl(a)gih.com>, carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, > rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, > ICANN At-Large Staff<staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > > > Dear all, > > The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the > At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): > > - The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant > Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction > (entitled “Status of this Document”); and > - The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second > Milestone Report. > > We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members > of the ICANN Board. > > The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names > Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, > on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 > May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively > changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May. > > During the period 7–13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the > At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the > ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here. > > The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC > Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the > Board. > > > > Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted > independently and has not reached the approval stage. > > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn > Vernon > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > <jas-milestone2-report-7may11-en-alac-revision.pdf><AL-ALAC-ST-0511-2 ALAC > Statement on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report - EN.pdf> > > > > > -- 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: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

Councillors, Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO. Thanks Mary for providing this draft. Please let me have your comments. Stéphane Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> a écrit : > Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it. > > We suggest the following draft: > > Dear Peter, > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. > > Best regards, > Stephane van Gelder > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > >>> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM > Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report > Thanks Olivier. > > GNSO Council, FYI. > > A good weekend to all. > > Stéphane > > > > Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > >> Dear Stéphane, >> >> please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. >> Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. >> Have a good week-end! >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> -------- Message original -------- >> Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report >> Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700 >> De : ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >> Pour : Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org> >> Copie à : ocl(a)gih.com <ocl(a)gih.com>, carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff<staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >> >> >> Dear all, >> The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): >> The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled “Status of this Document”); and >> The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report. >> We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board. >> The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May. >> During the period 7–13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here. >> The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board. >> >> Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage. >> >> Regards, >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon >> ICANN At-Large Staff >> >> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >> website: www.atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> <jas-milestone2-report-7may11-en-alac-revision.pdf><AL-ALAC-ST-0511-2 ALAC Statement on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report - EN.pdf> >

8 15

Registry SG questions - JAS WG answers
by Rafik Dammak May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

Hello, I am forwarding the WG response to the registry SG questions, you will find the answers below in red. Regards Rafik *Q&A Registry Constituency and JAS WG* The WG thanks the Registry Constituency for the comments and questions submitted. The answers can be found below. On a general note, the WG notes that criteria different from matrix. Criteria was part of the charter, but matrix not. *3.2 Notes on Financial Need* The overriding consensus of the WG is that financial need and capability is the primary criteria for determining eligible applications. Such need and capability is to be demonstrated through the following criteria: 1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards ICANN's application fee, unless ICANN waives, or lowers application fees. 2. Where applicants anticipate scheduled fees, such as for extended evaluation, the applicant must be capable of contributing a quarter of the scheduled fees. *[RYSG] How was this determined? Is it sufficient to demonstrate viability? Some explanation of the WG thinking on this would be helpful.* 3. Applicants must be capable of contributing $45,000 towards registry operational costs, if the applicant proposes to operate its own registry platform. If the applicant proposes to share registry operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing the pro- rated proportional share of this cost. *[RYSG] Is the $45,000 amount an annual figure? It might make up a very small percentage of operational costs.* *[JASWG]* Answer to 3.2 questions: ICANN used figures in this range in 2000 and 2004. As the final fee is not yet fixed, see fee reductions, elsewhere, this minimum applicant capability is subject to increase, or decrease. Current offers of record by registry technical service providers to potential applicants are significantly lower than this figure. The total marketing budget PuntCat invested in .cat was 2,000 euros. 4. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry continuity operational costs, if the applicant proposes to fund its own continuity operation. If the applicant proposes to share registry continuity operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing the pro-rated proportional share of this cost. *[RYSG] It would be helpful to explain the basis for the $45,000 amount.* Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive? The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support to be made available for eligible applicants, which fall into the following categories: 4.1 Financial support/relief from ICANN 4.1.1 Cost Reductions The WG recommends the following fee reductions to be made available to all applicants who are determined as meeting the criteria established for support: • Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) the Program Development Costs (US$26,000) • Lower risk/contingency cost (US$60,000) *[RYSG] If these contingency funds are actually needed at the amount estimated, where would the deficit come from?* • Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made • Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or underserved languages. *[JASWG]* Current offers of record by registry technical service providers to potential applicants are significantly lower than the $45,000 figure. If ICANN is correct in the cost estimates, then cost increase will be transferred to other applicants. Lowering fees for few applicants automatically rises to others. Regarding contingency, this is a risk cost. As applications are reviewed to a higher standard for eligibility, rational risk must, of necessity, be altered downward, reducing rational contingency funding requirements. The same question arises if the contingency funds actually needed are in excess of the amount estimated, for applications not reviewed to a higher standard for eligibility. *[RYSG] Does the WG believe that costs will be less for ‘IDNs in small or underserved languages’? If not, what is being suggested here?* • Lower registry Fixed Fees *[JASWG]* The WG is not making any assumptions the cost will be different for IDNs. This is, nonetheless, not a leveled field. *[RYSG] Assuming the fees are reasonable with regard to services provided to registries, would other registries be expected to make up the deficit? Or does the WG believe the fees are too high? If the latter, was any analysis done to support that position?* • Exemption or deferment of IPv6 implementation requirements as possible *[JASWG]* If ICANN is correct in the cost estimates, then cost increase will be transferred to other applicants. Lowering fees for few applicants automatically rises to others. *[RYSG] Could this put the registry at a competitive disadvantage compared to registries that support IPv6? * Further reductions recommended • Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to 6-12 months *[JASWG]* In the WG’s opinion, no. DNS providers who don't keep up with the market (which means IPv6 and DNSSEC in this context) will lose business to those who do. However, this will not, in our opinion, be relevant to new registries during the initial year(s) of operation, while the IPv6 requirement is deferred. In some countries the IPV6 infrastructure might not yet be there. Also, the cost of having theis technology is high for some applicants. The WG further suggests the IPV6 capability is offered to the applicants in need at advantageous terms. *[RYSG] What if the registry fails? Does the WG suggest a higher tolerance for failure in exchange for a smaller continued operation obligation?* *[JASWG]* The presumption of failure applies to all registries, including the 2000 and 2004 round applicants now, or their successors in interest, operating registries. The staff choice of three years of continuity funding rationally reflects the failure scenario for applications made by speculators and other uninformed investors. The eligibility criteria for applicants seeking support eliminates these likely-to-fail applicants. Eligibility criteria ensure that the likely elapsed time to continuity operator discovery for registries "in continuity" arising from support eligible applicants is significantly less than that of random speculator driven failures. See also the response concerning contingency risk, as the same higher review standard lower risk cost principle applies here. The WG is not suggesting high tolerance for failure, however, the WG believes that the continued operations following the failure is considerable less than the ICANN estimates. 4.1.2 - Staggered Fees Instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of the applications, applicants meeting the criteria established for support could pay the fees incrementally. Staggered fees payment enables an applicant to compete for strings that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or only group with enough money to apply. *[RYSG] Staggered over what period of time? What happens if progress payments are not made on time?* *[JASWG]* These details must be specified, but we are not yet done. ICANN's schedule, or process, is not under the control of the working group. Part 5 - Evaluation process and relationship to the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) The WG has determined, at this time, that best possible process to provide support for such applications is to be done through a process that is parallel to, and not a replacement of, the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Thus, even after the Guidebook is formally approved, this WG can continue its work to refine those components of its mandate which remain unresolved. It is important that the AG make mention of this program and refer interested potential applicants to it, however it is not the WG's intention to otherwise affect the existing application process. To qualify for support applicants may be required to demonstrate that they meet this program's criteria on financial need and public interest; however such activity is intended to supplement, not replace, existing mechanisms in the AG. The WG had full consensus that Applicants that receive support under this program should repay that support as possible, and that such repayments go into a sustainable revolving fund used to support the future applications. Repayment is dependent on the gTLD Operator's financial success and will take the form of either • a capital contribution or lump sum; or • an income contribution or annual installment of until a lump sum is repaid; or • repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee expended by the Support Development Program. The following broad steps did not obtain thorough evaluation or full consensus by the WG, but have been suggested as a starting point to this process and will be further refined by the WG based on the Parts 1 to 4 above. Note the process is meant to be to be in parallel with the AG- 1. the Application is assessed using the criteria described in Part 3 and this Step takes place before the Application enters the AG process *[RYSG] Is there enough time for this?* *[JASWG]* We hope so :-)

1 0

City-wide FREE Wifi Access in Singapore - Wireless@SG
by Han Chuan, Lee May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

Hi Councilors, Wireless@SG is a wireless broadband programme developed by the host Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) of Singapore to provide island-wide FREE Wifi access at most public places and shopping centres in Singapore. You would have to register for an account at the Changi Airport when you arrive. Please proceed to the airport Customer Service Counters/Singapore Visitors Centres at the arrival hall of all 3 terminals. There are 3 such Wireless@SG providers. For more information, please refer to the following provider websites: 1. iCell: http://login.icellwireless.net/regterms.html 2. M1Net: http://wsg.m1net.com.sg/wterms.aspx 3. Singnet: http://home.singtel.com/wirelessSG/default.asp Coverage Areas: http://www.infocomm123.sg/wireless_at_sg/coverage_areas Regards Han Chuan, Lee

1 0

Fwd: Hotel booking
by Ching Chiao May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

This is just FYI -- if you have not made hotel reservation for SG meeting. Still quite a bit rooms at the Swissotel side available at special ICANN rate. Both Fairmont and Swissotel are connected the Raffles convention center so it's equally convenient. -- Ching

1 0