July 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Re: Suggested election time lines
by Tim Ruiz July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

No. Councilors should communicate with their SG Chairs on this. And this list is public, so anyone can follow it and I believe the Chairs of the SGs do that fairly consistently. The message is pretty simple, here is the timeline for officer elections and active Councilors at that time will be the ones voting. We can't change and move certain timelines without causing cascading problems. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Re: Suggested election time lines > From: Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair(a)unsw.edu.au> > Date: Thu, July 14, 2011 4:46 pm > To: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "Neuman, > Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Council GNSO > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hi > > should we include SGs Chairs in this discussion eg NCSG Chair is Avri and she will be handling our internal election process > > It might be easier if the SG Chairs are directly included in this discussion > > Cheers > > Rosemary > ________________________________________ > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder [stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com] > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 7:41 AM > To: Neuman, Jeff > Cc: Wendy Seltzer; Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Suggested election time lines > > Agree with Jeff that extending is not an option. If SGs find they cannot elect their new reps in time for Dakar, then they should look to extend the terms of their own Councillors so as not to impact the bylaw-mandated leadership election timeline. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Envoyé de mon iPhone4 > > Le 14 juil. 2011 à 21:09, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> a écrit : > > > The election timelines are set forth in the Bylaws. Given that we still have 3 months until the annual meeting, shouldn't that be enough time to get everything done? > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 3:05 PM > > To: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Cc: Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Suggested election time lines > > > > > > NCSG is also working on its Council elections. > > > > A third option would be to postpone our Council elections (and briefly > > extend the terms of current officers) if some SGs need a slightly longer > > window to complete their Councillor elections first. > > > > --Wendy > > > > On 07/14/2011 07:52 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >> Thanks Wendy for your comments. > >> > >> Yes that is correct, we designed option 1 to address the points made at the previous election and allow for the new Council to elect its Chair. > >> > >> However, I think it's worth stressing that for this option to be viable, we need to be sure that all SGs that are due to replace Councillors will have done so in plenty of time for this vote to take place. > >> > >> So my message was also a request to you, as representatives of your groups, to let the Council leadership and secretariat know if your own individual elections would be done in time? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Stéphane > >> > >> > >> > >> Le 13 juil. 2011 à 18:34, Wendy Seltzer a écrit : > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks for getting the conversation started Stéphane, > >>> > >>> Does the second, electronic, option assume that the voters would be the > >>> old Councillors, since the new ones will not be seated until the end of > >>> the AGM? If so, I would strongly support option 1, to give the > >>> Councillors who will be serving under the chair an opportunity to vote > >>> in the Chair's election. > >>> > >>> --Wendy > >>> > >>> On 07/13/2011 12:17 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >>>> Councillors, > >>>> > >>>> As a follow-up to this, please see attached a slightly modified note. The change is just to clarify one of the election procedure scenarios. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Stéphane > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 11 juil. 2011 à 17:18, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Councillors, > >>>>> A t > >>>>> As the Dakar meeting looms, one of the items we must cover is the elections of the next Council Chair (the VCs are house-specific and therefore do not need to be determined here). > >>>>> > >>>>> You will remember that last year's elections gave rise to some debate, and that the Council felt it would be useful to plan ahead a little more for this year. > >>>>> > >>>>> To start this process along, I have been working with Glen to produce two possible scenarios for running the elections. These are attached. My thanks to Glen for her hard work on this. > >>>>> > >>>>> As you will see from the attached, the options we have looked at are to try and address the wish that was expressed by some last year that it be the new Council that elect the Chair. There are some scheduling issues to address, and if the Council decides to elect its new Chair in Dakar, then we will have to work closely with those SGs electing new Councillors to ensure that those elections are done in plenty of time to allow for the Chair election to happen. > >>>>> > >>>>> We also ask the question, if we have an election in Dakar (rather than the 2nd option of an electronic ballot beforehand) of whether the vote should be by open or secret ballot. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let us have your comments on these proposals. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Stéphane > >>>>> > >>>>> <GNSO Council Election Procedures for the GNSO Council Chair to be seated in Dakar in October 2011.doc> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Fwd: Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 14, 2011

July 14, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Date : 14 juillet 2011 16:54:19 HAEC > À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > Cc : "mike.silber(a)icann.org Silber" <mike.silber(a)icann.org> > Objet : [soac-discussion] Fwd: Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs > > > Dear Community Leaders, > > This is a friendly reminder that yesterday was the last day for the call to name volunteers to take part in the Focus Group and we only heard back from two groups; ALAC and Registries Stakeholder Group. > > I hope you can reach out to your groups again and ask whether there are interested people to work with us in this group. We believe their feedback will be most valuable in this process and having a good representation of the various groups of the ICANN community within the Focus Group will be beneficial overall. > > Please let us know before the beginning of next week as the Focus Group is planned to start the work by 20 July 2011. > > Thanks for your support and kind regards. > > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> >> Date: June 30, 2011 6:08:49 PM GMT+02:00 >> To: "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> >> Cc: "mike.silber(a)icann.org Silber" <mike.silber(a)icann.org> >> Subject: Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs >> >> Dear Community Leaders, >> >> >> I communicated to you in Singapore that we would like to receive your support in forming a Focus Group to provide some initial feedback on two specific Public Comment implementation proposals relating to ATRT Recommendations 15, 16 and 17. >> >> This email is intended to provide additional details to help you in identifying individuals to participate in this activity. >> >> Purpose: To help ICANN Staff assess the usability and viability of certain implementation constructs related to the Public Comment process as recommended by the ATRT. >> >> Team Members: We would prefer to keep the Focus Group relatively small and are therefore requesting one representative from of each ICANN SO, AC or SG. >> >> Methodology: Due to the challenges in scheduling telephone calls/meetings and considering the nature of the topics/questions, our plan is that the group will interact and collaborate via a dedicated space within ICANN's Confluence Wiki environment. Details (e.g., links, login information) will be sent to the volunteers separately. At this time, no meetings are planned. >> >> Duration: We anticipate that the feedback period will last one month from 20 July through 19 August at which point the dedicated Wiki space will be closed. >> >> Content: ICANN Staff will outline two current proposals to the Focus Group and collect initial feedback (via the Wiki). The two specific topics that the Focus Group's will be asked to provide feedback are: >> >> Topic 1: Stratification/Prioritization of Public Comments >> >> Topic 2. Comment/Reply Structure for Public Comments >> >> Scope: The Focus Group will be asked specific questions concerning the topics listed above and feedback/responses will be collected via the Wiki. The ATRT Recommendations have been reviewed by the ICANN Community and approved by the ICANN Board; therefore, the Focus Group will not be asked to validate the ATRT Recommendations themselves. >> >> Outcomes: The Wiki collaboration and discussion threads will be used by Staff to inform its planning concerning the implementation topics listed above. Staff does not plan to issue any written reports or summaries of the Focus Group's deliberations; however, the Wiki may be opened for public read access once the work is completed. Elements of the feedback may be incorporated into a formal Public Comment solicitation that will deal with these same topics circa September 2011. >> >> I hope you find the above information helpful in identifying and selecting candidates to help with this feedback process. >> >> We hope to hear back from you with one volunteer contact detail from your group latest by 13 July 2011, in order to start the activity as outlined above. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Filiz Yilmaz >> >> >> Sr Dir Participation and Engagement >> ICANN >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >

1 0

JIG motion
by Rafik Dammak July 13, 2011

July 13, 2011

Hello, I would like to submit this motion about JIG Thanks, Rafik Whereas The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907) and Both the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan and the new gTLD process have been approved by the Board of Directors, bringing into effect the JIG charter condition: Upon adoption of either the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan or the new gTLD process by the ICANN Board of Directors, the WG will be closed, unless both the ccNSO and GNSO Council extend the duration of the JIG WG.; and The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; and The JIG has delivered a first report on Item 1 “Implementation of Single Character IDN TLD” to the ccNSO council and the GNSO council on date1; and The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council approved the report on April 7, 2011 and May 10, 2011 respectively; and The final report on the first item of interest was delivered to the ICANN Board on May 11, 2011; and Two issues of common interest remain from the JIG charter; and The JIG WG has discussed and proposed the following target timeline for completion of the remaining items of common interest: • 2011 Jul/Aug: Stocktaking & Development Initial Report for #3 (Public comments Sep 2011) • 2011 Sep/Oct: Completion of Initial Report for #2 (Public comments Nov 2011) • 2011 Nov/Dec: Completion of Draft Final Report for #2 (Public comments Feb/Mar 2012) • 2012 Jan/Feb: Completion of Draft Final Report for #3 (Public comments Feb/Mar 2012) • 2012 Mar: Finalization of Final Report for #2 • 2012 Apr: Finalization of Final Report for #3 • 2012 May-Oct: Implementation Follow up Resolved The JIG Working Group is extended through 2012 to complete work items Two (2. IDN Variant TLDs) and Three (3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs ) from the original charter.

4 3

RE: [council] Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 July 2011.
by Tim Ruiz July 12, 2011

July 12, 2011

The only motion that shows up on the motion page is the IRTP-B motion on thick whois: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 July 2011. > From: Glen de Saint GÃ©ry<Glen(a)icann.org> > Date: Mon, July 11, 2011 5:50 pm > To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Dear Councillors, > > Please find the proposed draft agenda for the Council meeting on Thursday,21 July 2011. > > Wiki reference for the latest updates: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin… > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 July 2011. > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-21jul11-en.htm > > This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. > http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf > For convenience: > * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. > * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. > Meeting Time 11:00 UTC > > Coordinated Universal Time:11:00 UTC - see below for local times > (04:00 Los Angeles, 07:00 Washington DC, 12:00 London, 13:00 Brussels, 20:00 Tokyo; 21:00 Melbourne > > Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. > > GNSO Council meeting audiocast > http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Updated statement of interest > Rosemary Sinclair > http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/sinclair-soi-22jun11.htm > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: > â�¢ 22 June 2011 Council minutes â�� approved on 6 July 2011. > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-22jun11-en.htm > > Item 2: Pending Projects â�� Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group (10 minutes) > Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. > Refer to Pending Projects list > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf > This item to discuss the implementation of the resolutions passed by the GNSO Council at its June 22 meeting in Singapore and in particular action items arising from Resolved D, Resolved E and Resolved G. > Refer to June 22 motion: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 > 2.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings). > 2. 2 Discussion/Questions > > 2. 3 Next steps? > > 2.4 Reading of motion to address IRTP Part B recommendation #3 (XXXXX) > > 2.5 Discussion > > 2.6 Vote > > 2.7 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (StÃ©phane Van Gelder) > > > â�¢ GNSO activities: 10 (9 â�� Open Council Meeting DT added). > â�¢ Other activities: 9 (7 â�� GNSO toolkit of services removed, IRTP B rec 8, IRTP B rec 9 and IRTP C issues report added). > â�¢ Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 â�� no change). > â�¢ Outstanding recommendations: 2 (1 â�� IRTP B remaining recs added). > > > Item 3: Joint ccNSO-GNSO Internationalized Domain Names Working Group (JIG) (10 minutes) > > Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting: the JIG's current charter does not allow it to continue working, yet the JIG reported to the GNSO Council in Singapore that it still has some work to do. > > A motion is being submitted to extend the JIG's charter > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 > 3.1 Reading of the motion (XXXXXXX) > 3.2 Discussion > 3.3 Vote > Item 4: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes) > > As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b): > > Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest. > > As an action item, the GNSO therefore needs to look at providing the requested advice or at least consider whether it wants to provide advice and if so, how should these entities' names be handled at the second level in new gTLDs? > Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm > 4.1 Discussion > 4.2 Next steps > Item 5: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (15 minutes) > > As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 4.d): > > The review of additional community feedback, advice from ALAC, and recommendations from the GNSO following their receipt of a Final Report from the JAS Working Group (requested in time to allow staff to develop an implementation plan for the Boardâ��s consideration at its October 2011 meeting in Dakar, Senegal), with the goal of having a sustainable applicant support system in place before the opening of the application window. > > At its Singapore wrap-up meeting, the GNSO Council identified the following timeline if the Board request is to be answered in time: 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. > > This discussion item aims at identifying how these objectives can best be met. > Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm > 5.1 Discussion > 5.2 Next steps > Item 6: Interaction with ccNSO (15 minutes) > Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting: the ccNSO and the GNSO agreed to try and work together more closely on some projects of common interest. Two were discussed: the work the ccNSO is currently doing on ICANN's strategic plan and budget, and the work the GNSO is currently doing on CWGs. > This is a discussion item to ascertain how to push these two initiatives forward. > 6.1 Discussion > 6.2 Next steps > Item 7: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) (15 minutes) > The group has sent its Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration on June 14, 2011 > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf > > A motion has been made to approve this report. > > Refer to motion > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 > 7.1 Reading of the motion (XXXXX) > 7.2 Discussion > 7.3 Vote > Item 8: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (10 minutes) > The group has put its proposed Final Report out for public comment > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf > > A public comment period closed on July 9. > Summary of public comments > http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-final-report/msg00004.html > > A motion has been made for the Council to consider this report. > > Refer to motion > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 > 8.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 8.2 Discussion > 8.3 Vote > Item 9: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes) > Following recent discussions on the matter, the Council is being asked to consider a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. > This motion is being presented for discussion only at this meeting, in order to give the Council and its SGs sufficient time to properly assess it. > > Refer to motion > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 > 9.1 Reading of the motion (XXXXXX) > 9.2 Discussion > Item 10. Any Other Business (5 minutes) > 10.1 Possibility of a special meeting of the Council in August (first week of the month) on the JAS final report. > > Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) > > 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: > 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; > 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (â��PDPâ��) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; > 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (â��GNSO Supermajorityâ��); > 4. 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; > 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and > 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that â��a two-thirds vote of the councilâ�� 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. > > Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) > 4.4.1 Applicability > Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. > a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); > b. Approve a PDP recommendation; > c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; > d. Fill a Council position open for election. > 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meetingâ��s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. > 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. > 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. > Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 > Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-5+1DST 06:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 > Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 12:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 12:00 > Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 > Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 15:00 > Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 > Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 > Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 > Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 21:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com > > > > > Glen de Saint GÃ©ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > >

2 1

Motion on the Adoption of the PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations
by Tim Ruiz July 12, 2011

July 12, 2011

I am making the attached motion regarding adoption (PDF) of the PEDNR report and recs. The original motion was circulated prior to Singapore. It has been slightly modified. Again, thanks to Marika for drafting and for coordinating the changes. Thanks, Tim

2 1

IRTP Part B Motion - Recommendation #3
by Tim Ruiz July 12, 2011

July 12, 2011

As we decided at our meeting in Singapore, I am making the following motion (attached as a PDF). Marika, thank you for drafting it and for the reminders. Thanks, Tim MotionÂ on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on â��Thickâ�� WHOIS) 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 reportâ�¨(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 readilyâ�¨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; WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to â��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 Julyâ��. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of â��thickâ�� 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)

2 1

Summary of public comments - PDP-WT Final Report
by Marika Konings July 12, 2011

July 12, 2011

Dear All, Please find attached a summary of the comments received on the PDP-WT Final Report public comment forum which was initiated by the GNSO Council upon receipt of the Final Report from the PDP-WT. Four community submissions have been received. The summary should get posted later today on the ICANN web-site. With best regards, Marika

4 3

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 July 2011.
by Glen de Saint Géry July 11, 2011

July 11, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the Council meeting on Thursday,21 July 2011. Wiki reference for the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin… Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 21 July 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-21jul11-en.htm This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 11:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:11:00 UTC - see below for local times (04:00 Los Angeles, 07:00 Washington DC, 12:00 London, 13:00 Brussels, 20:00 Tokyo; 21:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest * Rosemary Sinclair http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/sinclair-soi-22jun11.htm 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 22 June 2011 Council minutes – approved on 6 July 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-22jun11-en.htm Item 2: Pending Projects – Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group (10 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf This item to discuss the implementation of the resolutions passed by the GNSO Council at its June 22 meeting in Singapore and in particular action items arising from Resolved D, Resolved E and Resolved G. Refer to June 22 motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 2.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings). 2. 2 Discussion/Questions 2. 3 Next steps? 2.4 Reading of motion to address IRTP Part B recommendation #3 (XXXXX) 2.5 Discussion 2.6 Vote 2.7 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 10 (9 – Open Council Meeting DT added). • Other activities: 9 (7 – GNSO toolkit of services removed, IRTP B rec 8, IRTP B rec 9 and IRTP C issues report added). • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (1 – IRTP B remaining recs added). Item 3: Joint ccNSO-GNSO Internationalized Domain Names Working Group (JIG) (10 minutes) Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting: the JIG's current charter does not allow it to continue working, yet the JIG reported to the GNSO Council in Singapore that it still has some work to do. A motion is being submitted to extend the JIG's charter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 3.1 Reading of the motion (XXXXXXX) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b): Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest. As an action item, the GNSO therefore needs to look at providing the requested advice or at least consider whether it wants to provide advice and if so, how should these entities' names be handled at the second level in new gTLDs? Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm 4.1 Discussion 4.2 Next steps Item 5: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 4.d): The review of additional community feedback, advice from ALAC, and recommendations from the GNSO following their receipt of a Final Report from the JAS Working Group (requested in time to allow staff to develop an implementation plan for the Board’s consideration at its October 2011 meeting in Dakar, Senegal), with the goal of having a sustainable applicant support system in place before the opening of the application window. At its Singapore wrap-up meeting, the GNSO Council identified the following timeline if the Board request is to be answered in time: 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. This discussion item aims at identifying how these objectives can best be met. Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next steps Item 6: Interaction with ccNSO (15 minutes) Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting: the ccNSO and the GNSO agreed to try and work together more closely on some projects of common interest. Two were discussed: the work the ccNSO is currently doing on ICANN's strategic plan and budget, and the work the GNSO is currently doing on CWGs. This is a discussion item to ascertain how to push these two initiatives forward. 6.1 Discussion 6.2 Next steps Item 7: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) (15 minutes) The group has sent its Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration on June 14, 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf A motion has been made to approve this report. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 7.1 Reading of the motion (XXXXX) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Vote Item 8: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (10 minutes) The group has put its proposed Final Report out for public comment http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf A public comment period closed on July 9. Summary of public comments http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-final-report/msg00004.html A motion has been made for the Council to consider this report. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 8.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Vote Item 9: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes) Following recent discussions on the matter, the Council is being asked to consider a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. This motion is being presented for discussion only at this meeting, in order to give the Council and its SGs sufficient time to properly assess it. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2011-07-21 9.1 Reading of the motion (XXXXXX) 9.2 Discussion Item 10. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 10.1 Possibility of a special meeting of the Council in August (first week of the month) on the JAS final report. Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. 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; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. 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. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-5+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 12:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 21:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP
by Glen de Saint Géry July 11, 2011

July 11, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27may11-en.htm Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/prelim-report-udrp-27may11-en.htm> Open Date: 27 May 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:prelim-report-udrp@icann.org> Close Date: 15 July 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/prelim-report-udrp/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose ICANN Staff is seeking comments on its Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/prelim-report-current-state-udrp-27may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.25 MB]. Specifically, this Report addresses: * How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date and any insufficiencies or inequalities associated with the process. * Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated. The Preliminary Issue Report informs the GNSO Council of the current state of the UDRP in advance of the Council's vote on whether to commence a Policy Development Process (PDP) on this important policy. This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the ICANN community to provide its views on the current state of the UDRP and on whether a Policy Development Process should be initiated to review the UDRP. This Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Section II: Background Created in 1999, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) has successfully offered parties a less expensive alternative to costly litigation for resolving disputes involving domain name cybersquatting. The UDRP has not been formally reviewed by the GNSO Council since its inception. Section III: Document and Resource Links * For information on the GNSO's activities related to the UDRP, please see: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/ * For more information on the current state of the UDRP, please view the 10 May Webinar archived at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoudrpdt/Webinar+on+the+Current+State… * To participate in the Singapore session on the Current State of the UDRP, please see: http://singapore41.icann.org/ Section IV: Additional Information None Staff Contact: Margie Milam Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20the%20Current%20State%20of%20the%20UDRP%20public%20comment%20period> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: New gTLD Global Awareness Campaign - Request for Proposals
by Glen de Saint Géry July 11, 2011

July 11, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05jul11-en.htm New gTLD Global Awareness Campaign - Request for Proposals 5 July 2011 On 20 June 2011, ICANN's Board approved a program that will add to familiar top-level domains such as .com, .org, and .net, the possibility of having almost any word in any language as a top-level domain. This massive expansion of the number of possible domain names calls for an equally significant communications campaign to raise global awareness about the program. The rest of 2011 is a communications period dedicated to raising awareness around the world about the opportunity and risks associated with applying for a new gTLD. The Application period opens 12 January 2012 and will run for 90 days. To help us achieve our goal of educating the world about this program we have issued a request for proposals (RFP). The objective of the RFP is to retain an advertising agency to help us develop, implement and measure the success of a global advertising and awareness campaign for new generic top-level domains (new gTLDs). Please review the attached RFP for an overview of the program, our vision and proposal requirements. Send any questions about the RFP to michele.jourdan(a)icann.org<mailto:michele.jourdan@icann.org> by 11 July 2011. Responses to inquiries will be posted to a community wiki by 13 July 2011. All responses are due by 8:00a Pacific time, Monday, 18 July. RFP - New gTLD Global Awareness Campaign http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rfp-new-gtld-global-awareness-camp… [PDF, 633 KB] Ad and PR Industry wiki https://community.icann.org/display/newgtladvertising/Home Additional informational material * Get Ready for the Next Big .Thing: An Overview of New gTLDs<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AybZsS3NmFo> * Frequently Asked Questions<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/factsheet-new-gtld-program-14apr11…> [PDF, 634 KB] * Applicant Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rfp-clean-30may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 4.81 MB] We look forward to receiving and reviewing your proposals. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0