June 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft Motion on PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations
by Tim Ruiz June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

As was done with IRTP-B, I would like to present the attached draft motion for discussion only. Besides discussion on the Council list please include your SGs/Cs with the goal of having a final motion for a vote in July. Marika, thank you for coordinating and drafting the motion. Tim

2 1

Fwd: Singapore Fellowship Social Tonite at 1800-1930 in Stamford Ballroom Foyer
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

Sorry for the late forward, but in case any Councillors want to go, this is still on for another 30 minutes. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange(a)icann.org> > Date : 21 juin 2011 10:11:53 HAEC > À : Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org>, Teresa Elias <teresa.elias(a)icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah(a)icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, Barbara Clay <barbara.clay(a)icann.org>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Jeannie Ellers <jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org>, "Jeffrey A. Moss" <jeffrey.moss(a)icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, John Nakamura <john.nakamura(a)icann.org>, Jorge Etges <jorge(a)etges.com.br>, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, Richard Cheng <richard(a)netmission.asia>, Richard Lamb <richard.lamb(a)icann.org>, Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org>, Naela Sarras <naela.sarras(a)icann.org>, Marc Salvatierra <marc.salvatierra(a)icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org>, Michael Salazar <michael.salazar(a)icann.org>, Joshua Bierman <joshua.bierman(a)icann.org>, Cory Schruth <cory.schruth(a)icann.org>, Sean Powell <sean.powell(a)icann.org>, "Nashwa Abdelbaki (nashwa.abdelbaki(a)googlemail.com)" <nashwa.abdelbaki(a)googlemail.com>, "mouhamet(a)next.sn" <mouhamet(a)next.sn>, "hongxueipr(a)gmail.com" <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com>, Alejandro Pisanty <apisan(a)servidor.unam.mx>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, "Alice Munyua (alice(a)apc.org)" <alice(a)apc.org>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, "Chris Chaplow " <chris(a)andalucia.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "lesley(a)nominet.org.uk" <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, 'Stéphane Van Gelder' <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Tim Cole <Tim.Cole(a)icann.org>, Craig Schwartz <craig.schwartz(a)icann.org>, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Ken Shiu <ken.shiu(a)icann.org>, Carole Cornell <carole.cornell(a)icann.org>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org>, Michael Salazar <michael.salazar(a)icann.org>, Juan Ojeda <juan.ojeda(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "Jun Murai (junsec(a)wide.ad.jp)" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, Joette Youkhanna <joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org>, Joseph DeJesus <joseph.dejesus(a)icann.org>, Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org>, Kim Davies <kim.davies(a)icann.org>, Nick Kukich <nkukich(a)verilan.com>, "Norm Ritchie (nritchie(a)isc.org)" <nritchie(a)isc.org>, "'nweis(a)verilan.com'" <nweis(a)verilan.com>, Brad White <Brad.White(a)icann.org>, Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette(a)icann.org>, Khalil Rasheed <khalil.rasheed(a)icann.org>, Mandy Carver <Mandy.Carver(a)icann.org>, Maguy Serad <Maguy.Serad(a)icann.org>, Pam Little <Pam.Little(a)icann.org>, Scott Pinzon <scott.pinzon(a)icann.org>, Lynn Lipinski <lynn.lipinski(a)icann.org>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com>, J Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>, "Heather (Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca)" <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com>, "wendy(a)seltzer.com" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, elliot noss <enoss(a)tucows.com>, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich(a)icann.org>, Alexander Kulik <alexander.kulik(a)icann.org>, Brian Peck <brian.peck(a)icann.org>, Carlos Alvarez <carlos.alvarez(a)icann.org>, Christina Rodriguez <christina.rodriguez(a)icann.org>, Cory Schruth <cory.schruth(a)icann.org>, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Ginny Joy Landi <ginny.joylandi(a)icann.org>, Herb Waye <herb.waye(a)icann.org>, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Mark Mcfadden <mark.mcfadden(a)icann.org>, Tina Dam <tinadam(a)gmail.com>, policy-staff <policy-staff(a)icann.org>, ICANN-Regional Liaisons <regional-liaisons(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, "paul(a)levins.net" <paul(a)levins.net>, "sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org" <sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org>, 'Dev Anand Teelucksingh' <admin(a)ttcsweb.org>, "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett(a)networksolutions.com>, K Fattal <khaledfattal(a)hotmail.com>, Raimundo Beca <rbeca(a)imaginaccion.cl>, Hultzsch <Hultzsch(a)telekom.de> > Objet : Singapore Fellowship Social Tonite at 1800-1930 in Stamford Ballroom Foyer > > Please come and meet, engage with the Singapore Fellows and each other over a cocktail…this invitation is extended to other constituency members who wish to stop by so chairs – please do feel free to bring someone along to network with our great Fellows!

1 0

IRTP Part B Motion - Friendly Amendment
by Rosette, Kristina June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

All, Just a quick note to let you know that I'm working on getting IPC approval for proposed alternative language for Resolved C. K

1 0

IRTP-B Motion ammendment
by Adrian Kinderis June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

All, Much to Glen's displeasure I will soon be offering a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B Motion. The Registrars had some good discussion today and we were unable to come to a common position on the complete motion. I will send through my amended motion shortly but wanted to give you a head's up. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

1 0

RE: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
by Tim Ruiz June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

Sorry Mary, I didn't get to the end of the thread before replying. If you drop the first sentence, and add the without further delay as in my first suggestion, I think the RrSG would be more likely to approve. So it would be: "The GNSO Council unanimously believes that it is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants, inter alia from developing regions of the world, participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible without delaying the program rollout any further. We reiterate also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report." Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan From: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:35 am To: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org, owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, KnobenW(a)telekom.de I am good with this. Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan From: <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 2:25 am To: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I don't have a problem with that, Wolf-Ulrich i.e. your insertion and deleting the reference to "on behalf of our Cs and SGs". If I may, we can also consider deleting the last part of my draft, which means the statement will now read (with Wolf-Ulrich's suggested changes included): "The GNSO Council wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). We unanimously believe that it is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants, inter alia from developing regions of the world, participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible. We reiterate also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report." 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>>> From: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>To:<Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>, <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>CC:<council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 6/18/2011 5:20 AMSubject: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan 1. See my insertion. I think "needy applicants" is to be seen in a wider range - as referenced in the JAS report, too. 2. The term "and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups" means (time-eating) co-ordination Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Juni 2011 10:58 An: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Betreff: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan How about - "The GNSO Council wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). We unanimously, and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, believe that it is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants [WUK: ] - inter alia from developing regions of the world[WUK: ] - participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible. We reiterate also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report so that recommendations for ensuring equal access to the new gTLD program can be discussed and implemented." I would suggest that, if we can, a statement such as this (tweaked as necessary) be issued to the community (including the Board and the GAC) as soon as possible :) 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 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>>> From: Rosemary Sinclair <" target=_blank>rosemary.sinclair(a)unsw.edu.au>;To:Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, "tim(a)godaddy.com" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder<" target=_blank>stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>;, "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>CC:"'GNSO Council List'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>Date: 6/18/2011 4:48 AMSubject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan Or that using a CWG when we do not have clear, agreed processes made progress on an issue where there was common commitment to doing "something" much more difficult for the WG members and the Council Given that we now have a unanimous position supporting the group's work I think Mary's original proposal was very useful as it took the content out of play and left our ongoing discussion to focus on process management issues....in this case implementation proposals rather than policy proposals.... I'd support Mary's original version Cheers Rosemary ________________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis [adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:48 PM To: tim(a)godaddy.com; Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan +1 Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com Sent: Saturday, 18 June 2011 3:48 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan And that a cwg or jwg may not have been the appropriate mechanism for the issue. Tim ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder <" target=_blank>stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:09:47 +0200 To: <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> Cc: 'GNSO Council List'<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan Thanks Mary, Would you be up for drafting a proposed statement, for the Council's consideration? Stéphane Le 18 juin 2011 à 09:01, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu<mailto:>" target=_blank>Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>>; a écrit : In partial follow-up to Adrian's point about possible deliverables and courses of action, I'd offer the suggestion I made during today's discussion, viz., that the GNSO Council consider circulating a brief statement to the ICANN community, stating its support for the work being done by the JAS WG and reiterating the importance of the issues they are considering. 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<mailto:" target=_blank>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: "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei(a)cctld.ru<mailto:>" target=_blank>andrei(a)cctld.ru>>; To: "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au<mailto:>" target=_blank>adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>>;, "'GNSO Council List'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:>" target=_blank>council(a)gnso.icann.org>>; Date: 6/18/2011 1:13 AM Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan I think adding "set and bind to the timelines" would be beneficial. Or there will be always a workaround for "endless discussion". --andrei From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:" target=_blank>owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 12:56 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Adrian's gameplan As I discussed in the Working Session today. The four issues based on this discussion (as I see them); - Stephane speaking directly to the Board - Katims email and the issues of the JAS WG o Processes within the Council - The future of Cross Community Working Groups o Publishing of reports etc - The optics of the GNSO Council and the promotion of its internal processes and representation o Multi stakeholder make up o Differing views/ differing It would be best, I think, to try and get some deliverables and courses of action in order to promote resolution. Adrian Kinderis

9 10

Updated Council motions for 22 June 2011 at 14:00
by Glen de Saint Géry June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

Dear All, Please find the updated motions for the Council meeting tomorrow: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 Motion 1 on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations Made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded by: Jonathan Robinson Motion 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 Required Voting Threshold [1] 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) More than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority") 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. In the event a GNSO Supermajority Vote is not achieved, approval of the recommendations contained in the Final Report requires a majority of both houses and further requires that one representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the recommendations. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all Council members must cast a vote unless they identify a financial interest in the outcome of the policy issue.[2] 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) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority 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 RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council recommends that if a review of the UDRP is conducted in the near future, the issue of requiring the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings is taken into consideration. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #7) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority 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 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. Simple majority vote of each House 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. Simple majority vote of each House RESOLVED (F), the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3) At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council of each House or a majority of one House. 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 FOAs 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. At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council of each House or a majority of one House. 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ [1] As a reminder, the level of support received from the GNSO Council for the recommendation (GNSO Supermajority or no GNSO Supermajority) determines the voting threshold required by the Board to reject a GNSO Council recommendation as outlined in section 13 Board Vote of Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws. [2] In the event that this recommendation is not approved by a GNSO supermajority vote, the recommendations would not be considered consensus policy and therefore not be binding on existing contracted parties.

1 0

RE: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion
by Tim Ruiz June 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

I should have said I am proposing it. I consider it friendly and hope that Jonathan, as seconder of the original motion, will find it as friendly as well. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion > From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Date: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:47 pm > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > > I am making a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B motion that we will be > considering Wednesday. Staff has had the motion reviewed by Counsel and > they suggest that we clarify Resolves D and E so it is clear that we are > not giving prior approval before seeing what Staff develops/proposes. > The amendment is to replace Resolves D and E with the following: > > 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. > > > Tim > >

3 2

Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion
by Tim Ruiz June 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

I am making a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B motion that we will be considering Wednesday. Staff has had the motion reviewed by Counsel and they suggest that we clarify Resolves D and E so it is clear that we are not giving prior approval before seeing what Staff develops/proposes. The amendment is to replace Resolves D and E with the following: 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. Tim

1 0

JIG
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

Councillors, One of the action items we might want to take away from our meeting with the ccNSO today is a possible extension of the JIG's charter. As discussed, the current charter has the group stopping its work once the DAG is finalized, which today's Board decision has effectively done. But there are some issues the JIG would still like to address (IDN variants, universal acceptance of IDNs...). The JIG is meeting today. Leslie Cowley, Chair of the ccNSO, and I had a quick talk with some JIG members after our joint meeting today and we asked that the group get back to both Councils telling us what issues they would like to look at and what timeframe they feel they need to do that. Once we get that feedback, the suggestion that we would put to both Councils would then be to extend the JIG's charter accordingly. The message we got from the JIG is that they feel the group is a great example of a CWG that works well and with balanced participation from both chartering organisations. So it may be a group that we want to look to as a kind of "show flat" for the way CWGs could work well, and hence we may want to extend their charter as requested. Thanks, Stéphane

2 1

RE: Draft Motion for PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations
by Tim Ruiz June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Here is the draft PEDNR motion in PDF format. Tim

1 0