June 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

ccNSO UPDATE: New Members
by Olga Cavalli June 29, 2011

June 29, 2011

Hi, for your information there are three new members of the ccNSO: .gg .je .na Total members are116. Regards Olga

1 0

Transcript of Council-Board Meeting
by Rosette, Kristina June 29, 2011

June 29, 2011

Greetings! I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home. The transcript of the Council-Board meeting appears to omit my question to Steve Crocker on the revolving door issue and his answer. I've let Glen know. If there was a particular portion of that meeting that was of interest to you, you may want to check the transcript. You can access it from http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24435. K

1 0

Draft minutes GNSO council minutes Singapore 22 June 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft Council minutes of the public meeting on Wednesday, 22 June in Singapore. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved on 6 July 2011. Thank you and safe travels. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Adoption of GNSO charters and new GNSO constituencies
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

Councillors, Just as an FYI, here is an extract from the transcript of today's Board meeting: >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WE BEGIN WITH A CONSENT AGENDA, AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NEW TO THIS PROCESS THIS IS A THING BY WHICH A NUMBER OF REPORTS AND THINGS HAVE BEEN WORKED UP THROUGH THE VARIOUS PROCESSES AND COME TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL. THE BOARD HAS DISCUSSED EACH OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS AND HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR PLACEMENT ON THE FULL JEANTD IF IT'S THOUGHT APPROPRIATE THAT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IS REQUIRED ON THESE ITEMS. JUST BY WAY OF EXPLANATION THEY INCLUDE APPROVAL OF MINUTES, ADOPTING CHARTERS FOR THE GNSO, A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW CHARTER IN THE GNSO, APPROVAL OF A CONSTITUENCY RECOGNITION PROCESS, CHANGES TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS, CHANGING THE FORMULATION OF THE NOMINATING SLIDE IN REGARD TO THE KEAK SLOT, MEETINGS NEXT YEAR IN LATIN AMERICA AND EUROPE. AND THEN THANKING DEPARTING. AND THANKING OUR HOSTS, AND THANKING YOU OUR MEETING PRAVERNTS PARTICIPANTS. SO WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO MOVE FROM THE CHAIR THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. IS THERE A SECONDER FOR THAT? THANK YOU, GEORGE. SO THE MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA IS NOW PUT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. (HANDS RAISED). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? CARRIED. THANK YOU. The consent agenda items that are of particular relevance to the GNSO were the following: From the SIC – New GNSO Constituency Recognition Process From the SIC – Permanent Charters of the GNSO’s Commercial Stakeholders Group From the SIC – Permanent Charters of the GNSO’s Non Commercial Stakeholders Group From the SIC – Proposal for a Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency in the GNSO Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
by Glen de Saint Géry June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

Dear All, As agreed at the GNSO Council wrap-up meeting a small group has been formed to revise the format of the open Council meetings. The Open Council Meeting Drafting Team mailing list is up and running. As requested, the following people have been added to the list: Stéphane Van Gelder Adrian Kinderis Zahid Jamil" William Drake Mary Wong Jeff Neuman John Berard Please let me know whether you would like to be added to the drafting team. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GAC Singapore Communiqué
by Bruce Tonkin June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

From: http://gac.icann.org/ GAC Communiqué – Singapore I. Introduction The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) met in Singapore, during June 18 - 23, 2011. Forty nine Governments participated in the meeting: 47 present and 2 by remote participation. The GAC expresses warm thanks to the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore for hosting the meeting and ICANN for supporting the GAC meeting. II. New gTLDs The GAC notes the Board’s 20 June decision to launch the new gTLD programme. The GAC appreciates the potentially beneficial opportunities provided by new gTLDs. However, the GAC is concerned that several elements of its advice on important public policy issues, including issues set out in the GAC's letter to the Board on 18th June (annexed), were not followed by the Board prior to the approval of the gTLD programme. The GAC acknowledges, however, that other advice was followed, and that the Board has provided a draft rationale for its decision to reject GAC advice. The GAC has the expectation that the implementation of the new gTLD programme will respect applicable law in order to avoid detrimental consequences to parties involved, in particular to applicants. The GAC expresses its willingness to continue to work constructively with the whole ICANN community on the new gTLD programme. The GAC also notes the commitment of the Board to reply in writing to the European Commission and the US government on the recent letters they have sent to ICANN related to competition issues. III. GAC-Board Joint Working Group The GAC-Board Joint Working Group (JWG) on the Role of the GAC within ICANN reviewed amendments to its draft report that address the recommendations from the Accountability and Transparency Review Team pertaining to the GAC (ATRT Recommendations #9-14). The JWG agreed to finalize the report for public comment, after which the GAC expects to collaborate with the Board to implement the recommendations included in the JWG report. The GAC also re-states its strong support for the timely implementation by the Board of all of the ATRT Recommendations. The GAC will monitor the development of the implementation closely. IV. Advancing Law Enforcement Objectives to Mitigate DNS Abuse The GAC, together with representatives of law enforcement agencies (LEAs) from several GAC members, engaged with the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Registrar Stakeholder Group on the status of LEA efforts to advance a “code of conduct” or “agreed best practices”, and reinforced the critical importance of demonstrating concrete and effective support for LEA objectives to include a timetable of implementable actions. The GAC welcomes the registrars’ offer to identify any substantive implementation issues with any unresolved LEA recommendations, for further dialogue with the GAC. The GAC recalls its endorsement of LEA recommendations for due diligence and amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement in June 2010, and urges the Board to support actions necessary to implement those recommendations as a matter of urgency. V. Meeting with the At-Large Advisory Committee The GAC met with the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) on 19 June to further advance cooperation, and particularly to discuss how the two Committees could support the work of the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group. The GAC is encouraged by the reference to the ongoing work of JAS-WG in the resolution of the ICANN Board in the launch of this new round of gTLD expansion. The GAC advises ICANN to provide the necessary resources required to evolve the JAS work towards implementation, including provision for legal, logistical, and authoring timely support of a universally accessible “Needs-Assessed Applicant Guidebook”. VI. Meeting with Security and Stability Advisory Committee The GAC held an informative and valuable meeting with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) that focused on the SSAC’s recently released report on the effects of blocking of top-level domains on the security and stability of the DNS system. The GAC was particularly interested in the possibility of determining and developing means to identify and measure the specific harm of blocking of top level domains and possible incremental increase in harm when multiple top level domains are blocked on a wide scale. The GAC expressed its interest for more research and analysis into these issues. It also suggested having the SSAC report published in languages other than English in order to raise awareness across the wider Internet community. The GAC expressed its interest in further dialogue with the SSAC. VII. GAC-Country Code Names Supporting Organization joint session The GAC exchanged views with the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) on the following issues: the value of identifying shared priorities; the ccNSO’s perspectives on the ICANN operating plan and budget; the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG) dealing with delegation and redelegation; an update on the Names of Countries and Territories Study Group; an update from the ccNSO on ICANN security and stability; and the impact of new territory or geographic TLDs on ccTLDs. The GAC indicated its strong interest in participating in the FoI WG, which will hold its first face to face meeting on June 23 and looks forward to receiving a more detailed project timeline from the ccNSO regarding specific issues for the GAC’s attention. VIII. Meeting with the WHOIS Review Team The WHOIS Review Team provided the GAC with a summary of the review's progress. The GAC identified and discussed: - concerns about privacy and proxy services; - the potential benefits of WHOIS data validation; and - the need for effective compliance activities, noting that legitimate users of WHOIS data are negatively affected by non-compliance. The GAC strongly supports the WHOIS Review Team's efforts, and looks forward to continued constructive engagement as the review progresses. IX. Meeting with Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team The GAC met with the Security Stability and Resiliency (SSR) Review Team. In acknowledging the Team’s mandate and scope of work, the GAC noted that the SSR Review is an opportunity to describe shortfalls in current plans, compliance and preparedness to address potential and actual threats. The GAC supports the Review Team proposal to review areas within the scope of ICANN's technical mission, while aiming to strike a balance to ensure that ICANN's SSR related activities are taken seriously and also recommending whether the criteria would need to be modified as the Internet evolves. The GAC looks forward to continued engagement with the SSR-RT. X. Meeting with the Number Resource Organization The GAC met with the Number Resource Organization (NRO), who provided useful insights into the position of the numbering space following the final allocation of the /8 IPv4 address blocks. The GAC discussed with the NRO about the IPv4 exhaustion, legacy space, competition concerns, IPv6 allocation and actions to facilitate the transition to IPv6. The GAC noted the need to develop national initiatives to promote the technological update of the systems to ensure the communications infrastructure, public services and applications of the governments are compatible with IPv6, and to ensure that content is accessible from both IPv4 and IPv6 networks. *** The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who have contributed to the dialogue with the GAC in Singapore. The GAC will meet during the period of the 42nd ICANN meeting in Dakar, Senegal.

1 0

Main discussion points from today's wrap-up
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

Hi all, Here are some of the points that I picked up from today's excellent discussions. Once again, thanks to you all for your hard work this week. Safe travels home and see you all next time. Special mention to Kristina, Adrian, Tim and Zahid. We will miss your wisdom, enthusiasm, hard work and... ice cream. Or to put it more succinctly, we will miss you!!! Stéphane GNSO review, the timeframe has been pushed back from 3 to 5 years. This currently has the next review starting in July 2013. Previous recommendations were approved by the Board at the July 2008 Paris meeting. The SIC will talk about this in the months to come. Start open Council meetings with the open mic. Do not fill the Open meetings with non-essential agenda items. If there aren't enough items to cover the time, make the meetings shorter. Informal working group on helping "juice up" the GNSO Council Open meetings: Adrian, Jeff, John, Stéphane. These are the dates we've worked out for the JAS: For the Board to approve the JAS implementation plan in Dakar on October 28, the Staff must publish all documents for the Dakar meeting 15 business days before Dakar, so October 7. So that means the Council must approve the JAS Final Report at its September 8 meeting.

4 4

Public comment?
by Rosette, Kristina June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

I make this suggestion in all seriousness: Does it make sense to have a public comment period to find out what the community wants or needs our public meetings to be/cover? K

4 3

If you're still waiting to pay me ...
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

... I'm in the back of the Padang Room, where the Public Forum is going on. I'm seated in the last row, on the right of the room if you are looking out on the room from the stage (and FWIW in front of a large fake potted plant :) I'll be watching the "show" till it ends. so give me a shout (via email) if you can't find me - if anything, to avoid another naggy email about $$$ tomorrow! :) Thanks and 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

1 0

Dates for the GNSO Council meetings from September going forward
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

Dear All, Please find proposed dates for Council meetings at 4 week intervals starting from September 2011 Thursday 8 September - 20:00UTC Thursday 6 October - 15:00 UTC Wednesday 26 October - GNSO Public Council meeting in Dakar 14:00 local time Thursday 24 November - 11:00 UTC Thursday 22 December - 15:00 UTC Thursday 21 January - 20:00 UTC Please let me know if there are any conflicts with these dates so that they can be confirmed and changed on the calendar. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

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

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

June 22, 2011

Agree. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Kieren's thoughts on Mikey's "resignation" > From: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 4:05 am > To: > Cc: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Unfortunately, that brings us back to the discussion we had after whatever meeting it was, when we ended up re-drafting motions during our public meeting, and that didn't go down well either - both seem opposite ends of the spectrum (too much open discussion versus too little?). Maybe we should discuss this during the wrap-up session tomorrow. > > 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: > "Neuman, Jeff" > > To: > "'tim(a)godaddy.com'" , "'adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au'" > > CC: > "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" > > Date: > 6/22/2011 4:59 AM > > Subject: > Re: [council] Kieren's thoughts on Mikey's "resignation"I think both Mikey and subsequently jumped the gun based on the debates over the weekend, which were just that....debates. > > To post an article like Kieren has could have the unintended affect of stifling open debate during our sessions. I for one prefer open debate, but not if some are going to take that out of context. > > We eventually got to the right place, but we needed to get there through debate and working through the issues. We should have been given the benefit of the doubt until we took final action. > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > Vice President, Law & Policy > NeuStar, Inc. > Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz > > > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 04:46 AM > To: adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Kieren's thoughts on Mikey's "resignation" > > > 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 > > Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 2:54 am > > To: GNSO Council List > > > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/22/gnso-council-vs-volunteer-model > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

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

June 22, 2011

The motion was quoted from the report recommendations. That is always the way we have done it, and for the very reason that Mikey is concerned with - being sure that the Council does not change anything. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: AW: [council] Kieren's thoughts on Mikey's "resignation" > From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de > Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 4:01 am > To: <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > @font-face { > font-family: Cambria Math; > } > @font-face { > font-family: Calibri; > } > @page WordSection1 {size: 612.0pt 792.0pt; margin: 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt; } > P.MsoNormal { > FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif" > } > LI.MsoNormal { > FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif" > } > DIV.MsoNormal { > FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif" > } > A:link { > COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 > } > SPAN.MsoHyperlink { > COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 > } > A:visited { > COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 > } > SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { > COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 > } > SPAN.EmailStyle17 { > COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-compose > } > .MsoChpDefault { > mso-style-type: export-only > } > DIV.WordSection1 { > page: WordSection1 > } > > > > I could follow Mikey's opinion about the council's > managerial role. I wonder whether such a detailed motion was necessary to > achieve council approval. It seemed to me a reflection of the issues having > controversely been discussed in the WG. > > This should be an item for discussion at the > wrap-up. > > Kind regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Adrian > Kinderis > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Juni 2011 09:55 > An: GNSO > Council List > Betreff: [council] Kieren's thoughts on Mikey's > "resignation" > > > > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/22/gnso-council-vs-volunteer-model > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > >

1 0

Kieren's thoughts on Mikey's "resignation"
by Adrian Kinderis June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/22/gnso-council-vs-volunteer-model Adrian Kinderis

2 1

FW: Waiter
by Adrian Kinderis June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

FYI. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: Krista Papac Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2011 3:11 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Subject: Waiter You are meant to serve on the Council, not serve the Council.

3 2

Re: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to IRTP Part B Resolved (C)
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Thanks Jonathan. Stéphane Le 22 juin 2011 à 10:37, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > Formally accepted as friendly. > > Jonathan > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: 22 June 2011 07:57 > To: krosette(a)cov.com > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to IRTP Part B Resolved (C) > > Thanks Kristina. I believe this addresses the concerns raised by Jeff > and the WG. I accept as friendly. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to IRTP Part B Resolved > > (C) > > From: "Rosette, Kristina" > > Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:48 pm > > To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" > > > > Jonathan and Tim, > > > > Please find below a proposed amended Resolved (C). I hope you will accept it as friendly, which is how it is intended: > > > > 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. > > > > Kristina > > > > > > Kristina Rosette > > Covington & Burling LLP > > 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC > > 20004-2401 > > voice: 202-662-5173 > > direct fax: 202-778-5173 > > main fax: 202-662-6291 > > e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com > > www.cov.com/krosette >

1 0