June 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Transcripts of the GNSO meetings are available
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

1 0

Corrected: Motion and Document deadline - Wednesday 13 July for GNSO Council meeting on 21 July 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

Dear All, Reminder, that as required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 21 July 2011 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 13 July 2011. Please see the calendar page for due dates for the rest of the year: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Please note that the pending project list will be updated before the meeting and posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 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

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Report on the PPC Community Update session/ATRT recommendations about Public Comments
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Date : 23 juin 2011 06:20:06 HAEC > À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > Objet : [soac-discussion] Report on the PPC Community Update session/ATRT recommendations about Public Comments > > Dear Community Leaders, > > Attached please find the presentation that was used at the Public Participation Community Update today. > It has a section on ATRT recommendations (15, 16, 17, 21) that are mainly about: > > 1. Stratification/Prioritization of Public Comments > 2. Comment/Reply Comment Structure for Public Comments > 3. A process to collect and publish Upcoming Public Comments > > You may remember, I have perviously contacted you and asked your feedback regarding the third item above to develop an initial list of issues for 2011. > Thank you for your comments, feedback and input which we used to construct the list. We will hopefully publish this initial annual list for 2011 shortly on the ICANN website. > > Now, we would like to come up with straw-man proposals to address the other two items of these ATRT recommendations and receive some initial feedback from your groups. To do this, we would like to form a Focus Group which hopefully be composed of one representative from your respective groups. > > The Focus group will be expected to meet three times between July-August via conference calls and sustain communication over mail during this time. > I will send a more detailed mail describing the process for the Focus Group work next week and ask for volunteers to be part of this Focus Group. > During this entire process we will send you updates. > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > >

1 0

GNSO Council action items out of the Singapore meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

Councillors, In order to feed our discussions during todays wrap-up and in the weeks ahead, I have prepared the attached document as a guideline of the action items we need to look at. Please comment and edit as required. Many thanks to Jeff Neuman for his help in preparing this. Stéphane

1 0

Motion and Document deadline - Wednesday 1 June for GNSO Council meeting on 21 July 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

Dear All, Reminder, that as required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 21 July 2011 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Wednesday, 13 July 2011. Please see the calendar page for due dates for the rest of the year: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Please note that the pending project list will be updated before the meeting and posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 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

Board presentation on Friday
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

Councillors, FYI, here is the presentation I will be giving to the Board on Friday morning as part of the SO/AC Chairs' reports. Stéphane

3 2

Re: [council] Board presentation on Friday
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

> This is the right presentation of course, not the one previously sent. > > > <Presentation to the Board in SIN for GNSO.ppt> >> > >> >> 2011/6/23 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >> Councillors, >> >> FYI, here is the presentation I will be giving to the Board on Friday morning as part of the SO/AC Chairs' reports. >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> >

1 0

Settling up!
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Hello everyone - I hope your visit to Singapore has been, and will continue to be, a productive and enjoyable one! I wanted to get the final tab for our Saturday dinner to everyone before the Wrap Up Session, so that you can, if necessary, visit the ATM before that :) (1) Dinner - I apologize to the few people who paid me at the restaurant, and who (because I wasn't writing things down) I've omitted from the following list. If you have not yet paid your US$50 (or S$63), I'd appreciate it if you could do so at the Wrap Up Session :) [My list so far: Adrian, Jeff, Wolf-Ulrich, Rob, Glen, Kristina, Debbie, Stephane, Marika, Jaime, Bill, Olga, Liz, Jonathan, David, Andrei, Carlos, Julie. Please let me know if you've paid and I forgot to list you!] (2) Drinks - except for Rob, Wolf-Ulrich, Zahid and Wendy, who did not drink alcohol, can everyone else please pay an additional US$31 (or S$38) for the beer and/or wine consumed? There are a few people I will approach separately to supplement that amount, as cocktails are not included in the US$31/S$38. Glen can make copies of the receipt for those who need it. Thank you all; I really hope you enjoyed our little dinner! Cheers Mary (3) 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 03301USAEmail: 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

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions - Singapore 22 June 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, please find the resolutions passed by the GNSO Council today, 22 June 2011 in Singapore: Motion 1 on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions: a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf) see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations. Resolved RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors: 1. Requiring Registrars to provide a Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC). To this end the language of section 4 (Registrar Coordination) and Section 6 (Registry Requirements of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy should be updated as follows: Transfer Emergency Action Contact (Append to Section 4) Registrars will establish a Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) for urgent communications relating to transfers. The goal of the TEAC is to quickly establish a real-time conversation between registrars (in a language that both parties can understand) in an emergency. Further actions can then be taken towards a resolution, including initiating existing (or future) transfer dispute or undo processes. Communications to TEACs will be reserved for use by ICANN-Accredited Registrars, gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN Staff. The TEAC point of contact may be designated as a telephone number or some other real-time communication channel and will be recorded in, and protected by, the ICANN RADAR system. Communications to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner, within a reasonable period of time following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain. Messages sent via the TEAC communication channel must generate a non-automated response by a human representative of the gaining Registrar. The person or team responding must be capable and authorized to investigate and address urgent transfer issues. Responses are required within 4 hours of the initial request, although final resolution of the incident may take longer. The losing registrar will report failures to respond to a TEAC communication to ICANN Compliance and the registry operator. Failure to respond to a TEAC communication may result in a transfer-undo in accordance with Section 6 of this policy and may also result in further action by ICANN, up to and including non-renewal or termination of accreditation. Both parties will retain correspondence in written or electronic form of any TEAC communication and responses, and share copies of this documentation with ICANN and the registry operator upon request. This documentation will be retained in accordance with Section 3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Users of the TEAC communication channel should report non-responsive Registrars to ICANN. Additionally, ICANN may conduct periodic tests of the Registrar TEAC communication channel in situations and a manner deemed appropriate to ensure that registrars are indeed responding to TEAC messages. (Append to Section 6) 6 iv. Documentation provided by the Registrar of Record prior to transfer that the Gaining Registrar has not responded to a message via the TEAC within the timeframe specified in Section 4. In addition, update section 6 to reflect that the registry, in case of a transfer undo, will reverse the transfer and reset the registrar of record filed to its original state ('In such case, the transfer will be reversed and the Registrar of Record field reset to its original state'). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #1) 2. Modifying section 3 of the IRTP to require that the Registrar of Record/Losing Registrar be required to notify the Registered Name Holder/Registrant of the transfer out. The Registrar of Record has access to the contact information for the Registrant and could modify their systems to automatically send out the Standardized Form for Losing Registrars ("Confirmation FOA") to the Registrant. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #5) 3. Modifying Reason for Denial #6 as follows: Express objection to the transfer by the authorized Transfer Contact. Objection could take the form of specific request (either by paper or electronic means) by the authorized Transfer Contact to deny a particular transfer request, or a general objection to all transfer requests received by the Registrar, either temporarily or indefinitely. In all cases, the objection must be provided with the express and informed consent of the authorized Transfer Contact on an opt-in basis and upon request by the authorized Transfer Contact, the Registrar must remove the lock or provide a reasonably accessible method for the authorized Transfer Contact to remove the lock within five (5) calendar days. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #6) 4. Deleting denial reason #7 as a valid reason for denial under section 3 of the IRTP as it is technically not possible to initiate a transfer for a domain name that is locked, and hence cannot be denied, making this denial reason obsolete. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 - part 1) RESOLVED (B), the GNSO Council recommends the promotion by ALAC and other ICANN structures of the measures outlined in the recent report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on A Registrant's Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (SAC 044). In particular, the GNSO Council recommends that registrants consider the measures to protect domain registrar accounts against compromise and misuse described in SAC044, Section 5. These include practical measures that registrants can implement "in house", such as ways to protect account credentials and how to incorporate domain name registrations into employee or resource management programs typically found in medium and large businesses. It suggests ways that registrants can use renewal and change notifications from registrars as part of an early warning or alerting system for possible account compromise. The GNSO Council Chair will reach out to the ALAC and other ICANN structures to inform them of this recommendation and discuss how the GNSO may contribute to this promotion. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #2) Resolved (C), the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of IRTP Part B Recommendation #7 and will consider this recommendation when it considers the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation. RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation. Resolved (F), the GNSO Council will consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July. RESOLVED (G), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part C, which should include: - "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #4) - Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authentification (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. - Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. MOTION 2. RE. REVISION OF THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES RELATING TO PROXY VOTING Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/osc-recommended-revisions-proxy-voting-14jun11… to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directs Staff produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post this document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on these recommendations, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period. 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Kieren's thoughts on Mikey's "resignation"
by Tim Ruiz June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Of course, it is a one sided story. The Council changed nothing in the report or recommendations. It only changed it's own motion. But, we all know that. Too bad Kieren didn't bother to get more facts before jumping the gun with his article. He used to be a bit more careful. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Kieren's thoughts on Mikey's "resignation" > From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> > Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 2:54 am > To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/22/gnso-council-vs-volunteer-model > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > >

5 5