June 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to IRTP Part B Resolved (C)
by Tim Ruiz June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

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" <krosette(a)cov.com> > Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:48 pm > To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <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

2 1

RE: [council] Adobe Connect room
by Tim Ruiz June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Sorry, on my iPad so no can do.. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Adobe Connect room > From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> > Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 1:05 am > To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > We'll be using the Council Adobe Connect room for this meeting: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnsocouncil/ > >

1 0

Adobe Connect room
by Marika Konings June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

We'll be using the Council Adobe Connect room for this meeting: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnsocouncil/

2 2

Proposed Friendly Amendment to IRTP Part B Resolved (C)
by Rosette, Kristina June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

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

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

June 21, 2011

Further to my email below I'd like to suggest the following amendment; Proposed amendment: Delete resolved clause (F) and replace it with the following resolved clause: 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. Adrian Kinderis From: Adrian Kinderis Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2011 5:29 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: IRTP-B Motion ammendment 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

3 2

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 21, 2011

June 21, 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 21, 2011

June 21, 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 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

Here is the draft PEDNR motion in PDF format. Tim

1 0

Invite for Volunteers to Form a Charter Drafting Team for the Outreach Task Force
by Glen de Saint Géry June 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

Dear All, Please note that there is still time to join! http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-19may11-en.htm One of the recommendations of the ICANN Board Governance Committee was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups. The Operations Steering Committee developed recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted them to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council. (See http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf.) On 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommendations by the Operations Steering Committee and directed staff to post the document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. On 28 April the GNSO Council directed the Operations Steering Committee to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate, or to make those changes directly as it sees fit. The Operations Steering Committee determined that no changes were ! necessary. Thus, on 19 May the GNSO Council directed ICANN staff to begin the process of seeking volunteers from the GNSO Council to form a Charter Drafting Team for the Outreach Task Force described in the recommendations as follows: "The GNSO Council should manage the development of the OTF [Outreach Task Force] through the creation of a Drafting Team to develop the OTF's [Outreach Task Force] Charter. The Charter shall include procedures for member recruitment, application, selection, terms and term limits. The Charter should also set goals for the completion of the membership selection process, establishment of a meeting schedule, and participation guidelines. The Charter should establish an initial term for the OTF [Outreach Task Force] of two years. After this period a review should be conducted to review the success of the OTF's [Outreach Task Force] initiatives and, if deemed successful, the OTF's charter could be extended annually." This invitation is extended to all members of the GNSO Community. We urge you to forward to this to all members of the community who may be interested in participating. Please contact the GNSO Council Secretariat at gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> if you are interested in joining the Drafting Team. Please contact Julie Hedlund at julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> if you have any questions about the Outreach Recommendations. 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

Agenda for Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting Monday, 12:30-14:00 in Sophia
by Glen de Saint Géry June 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

Dear All, Please find the agenda attached and posted on the website at: http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24493 which can be directly viewed at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Joint+ccNSO-GNSO+Co… Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

WHOIS review team
by Bruce Tonkin June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Hello All, I know the GNSO has some WHOIS studies underway. You may be interested in this request from the WHOIS Review team for a consumer research study on WHOIS. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Board workshop on Saturday
by Bruce Tonkin June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Hello All, Just so there is no surprises, the Board is planning to spend an extra day at the end of this week, to chat about stuff that we haven't had time to discuss this week with new gTLDs, ATRT discussions etc during the week. We have a very active Board so assuming 21 Board members each talk for 5 mins on each topic it takes us 75 mins per topic. From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/workshop-25jun11-en.htm ICANN Board of Directors Workshop, 25 June 2011 (Not designated as an Official Board Meeting) 25 June 2011 Board Workshop to Prepare for the Future Given the change in Board leadership and related changes in Board committee assignments and the multiple challenges facing ICANN, the Board will take advantage of the presence of most of the new Board and hold an informal workshop following the close of the ICANN meeting. The primary focus of the workshop will be the challenges facing ICANN and the coordination of Board and management directions.

1 0

NCUC statement on "use" requirement for Sunrise & URS
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

The following is a formal statement of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) in relation to the "use" requirement within the Trademark (TM) Clearinghouse and the URS. As with our earlier statement on the URS, we would greatly appreciate it being forwarded to the rest of the Board as soon as possible. Thank you. "NCUC supports the Board's response to the GAC in relation to the "use" requirement in the Trademark (TM) Clearinghouse and, for similar reasons that we articulate here, the URS. We note that all "marks that constitute intellectual property" (which expands the scope of the Clearinghouse from earlier drafts of the Applicant Guidebook) are eligible for participation in the TM Clearinghouse and the TM Claims Service. A sunrise registration is a priority registration that privileges certain intellectual property owners. The Board's proposed use requirement is not particularly onerous, and needing to show a "specimen of current use" does not necessarily amount to the type of use that constitutes an actual use (rather than an "intent to use") in the course of trade under trademark law. Combined with a vague, broad and general expansion in the scope of marks that can now be in the TM Clearinghouse, removing the use requirement for sunrise would unnecessarily expand the risk that legitimate registrations could be blocked at the preliminary pre-launch stage and increase the possibility of abuse of the sunrise process while expanding the process rights of trademark owners. Similarly, the requirement of use (which, as we noted above, is neither particularly onerous nor equivalent to "actual use" under substantive trademark law) should be retained for the URS. Besides the expanded risks that we explain above, removing the use requirement from the URS process would undermine the "slam dunk" nature of the types of claims that the URS is intended to deal with. We therefore strongly urge the Board to retain the use requirement for participation in a sunrise process and the URS." Best regards, 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

GNSO-ccNSO meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Councillors, As discussed today, please find attached the proposed agenda for our meeting with the ccNSO. Absent any further comments this afternoon, and as time is short on this, Glen please send this agenda to the ccNSO secretariat and Chair on my behalf this evening. Thanks, Stéphane

2 1

Friendly Amendment to IRTP-B Motion
by Tim Ruiz June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Based on recent discussions with the Council, IRTP-B WG members, and Staff I would like to offer a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B motion made by me and seconded by Jonathan: That the third bullet in Resolve G, which reads: "Whether requirements should be in place for Registrars to send an FOA to the Registrant or Admin Contact." be deleted from the motion. The reason being that this issue is dealt with in Resolve A item 2. Tim

2 1

Adrian's gameplan
by Adrian Kinderis June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

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 - Katim's 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

11 14

NCUC statement on the URS
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

The following is a formal statement from the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) on the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system. We would greatly appreciate it if ICANN staff or the GNSO representatives on the Board could ensure that it is forwarded to the rest of the Board as soon as possible. Thank you. "The NCUC strongly urges the ICANN Board to retain the current proposed standard of proof in relation to the URS. Not only is the standard consistent with the recommendations made by the IRT and STI, which represents community consensus on this particular point, lowering the standard to that being requested by the GAC would completely undermine the purpose of the URS, which is to expedite suspension of domains in "slam dunk" cases without abrogating the rights of applicants to due process. Allowing an expedited suspension on the basis merely of a "preponderance of the evidence" would go against this fundamental principle, and disrupt registrants' reliance on domain stability. Changing the evidentiary standard would also potentially expand the URS, undoing the safeguards that were negotiated and published in the Guidebook and raising the very real possibility of abuse of the URS. The URS is not intended to replace the UDRP, and as such one of the critical differences between the two - as to the standard of proof - must be retained." Best regards, 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

RE: [council] UDRP issues report discussion
by Tim Ruiz June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Not ignoring this request Kristina, we just want to confirm one way or the other. But I will say that the RySG councilors do not speak for the RrSG and I don't think that is what Jeff intended. I believe he was referencing discussions we have had in our House, certainly not an official position. Again, I will try to confirm an actual position. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] UDRP issues report discussion From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:23 am To: "'council(a)gnso.icann.org'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> To point out the obvious: If, as Jeff claims, the key problem is to get the bad actor registrars in line because the good actor registrars are doing the right thing, amending and changing the UDRP through a PDP is not the only solution. The other one is to amend the RAA accordingly. Also, this is the second time that Jeff has referred to the statement above as coming out of the registry-registrar meeting. I'd be interested in getting confirmation from someone from the RrSG if his characterization is accurate. Thanks. K

3 2