September 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

motion for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT
by Rafik Dammak Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Hello everyone, I am glad to submit today the motion for the final report from JAS WG, I attached the latest version of the report to be in time for GNSO motions deadline, and so you can start reviewing, I will submit anyway the final version (it should be the current one with formatting/typo corrections if there is) to the GNSO and ALAC. thanks for your understanding. Thanks to Glen who already sent details about the webinar aimed to give to different C/SGs' members of the chartering organizations presentation about the final report. Best, Rafik Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and, The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report ( https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items ( http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. and The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and The GNSO council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review and approval, and The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on implementation of the recommendations , and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.

4 4

RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 14, 2011

Sept. 14, 2011

Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>,GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have > questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented. > > The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP > is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules > into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in > on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, > ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to > sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still > some that have not). > > Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives > in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be > on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented > in a more timely manner? > > Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will > be obliged to pass on to their resellers? > > Alan > > At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at > >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it > >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement > >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any > >opposition from other SGs or Cs. > > > >Tim

1 0

Council meeting calendar
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 14, 2011

Sept. 14, 2011

Councillors, As a side-effect of pushing back our September meeting to the 22nd, our meeting calendar for October now no longer seems to make much sense. We have 2 meetings planned in October, the first on Oct 6 and the second is the Open Meeting in Dakar on Oct 26. The first meeting has a deadline for motions on Sept 28, so that's just days after our Sept 22 meeting. In light of all this, I would like to suggest we simply cancel the meeting planned on Oct 6 and return to our standard one-month interval between meetings with our Open Meeting on Oct 26. This would also have the added benefit of making the Oct 26 meeting more relevant. You will remember that in Singapore, we suffered a little in drafting the agenda for our Open Meeting there because we'd had a Council teleconference just days before the Singapore meeting. Does anyone object to canceling the Oct 6 meting? Thanks, Stéphane

5 5

Motions on the Wiki page
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 14, 2011

Sept. 14, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find the motions proposed by: - Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and seconded by Stéphane van Gelder on the revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting - Rosemary Sinclair to create a joint working group on consumer choice, competition and innovation - Zahid Jamil to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations On the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

ответственный за выборы сотрудник
by Andrei Kolesnikov Sept. 14, 2011

Sept. 14, 2011

Уважаемые члены Совета! В соответствии с пунктом 2.2. Регламента формирования Совета АНО "Координационный центр национального домена сети Интернет" настоящим информирую Совет о назначении сотрудника Координационного центра - Юрисконсульта Малышеву Марию Юрьевну, ответственной за проведение процедур, связанных с выборами членов Совета. С уважением, --андрей

2 2

Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented. The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still some that have not). Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented in a more timely manner? Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will be obliged to pass on to their resellers? Alan At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any >opposition from other SGs or Cs. > >Tim

1 0

Motion to adopt a Charter for IRTP-C PDP WG if formed...
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

Typically, if the motion to initiate a PDP on the ITRP-C issues passes we would then resolve to form a drafting team to develop a charter or ask the WG to do it themselves. However, the issues for IRTP-C are very precise and there is a lot on the table before the Council and Staff. Therefore, I make the motion that follows below to adopt a charter directly based on the IRTP-C issues. If the PDP WG, once engaged, deems it necessary to ask Council for changes, that is certainly their perogative as always. BTW, I want to thank Marika for composing both of these motions and doing her best to keep the Transfers policy review on track. Tim -------------- Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group (WG) Whereas on 22 September 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter. RESOLVED, The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part C WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the Final Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) and make recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) "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. b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.

1 0

Motion to initiate ITRP-C PDP as per Staff Issue Report
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

The Final Issues Report on IRTP-C was posted 29 August 2011 and recommends that the Council proceed with a PDP limited to the issues discussed in the report. Therefore, I would like to make the motion noted below and attached as a doc file. Tim --------------- Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Whereas the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008; Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part C at its meeting on 22 June 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106) Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 25 July 2011 for public comment (see http://gnso.icann.org/transfers/preliminary-issue-report-irtp-c-25jul11-en.…) Whereas a Final Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 29 August 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO RESOLVED: The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

1 0

Motion from the RrSG
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any opposition from other SGs or Cs. Tim -------------- WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity; NOW THEREFORE, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address. 2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change. 3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention (example: lawenforcement(a)example.tld) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours. 4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency’s first contact with a registrar. 5. Implementation and execution of these recommendations be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically: a. ICANN staff will analyze and report to the GNSO at six-month intervals for one year following implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the intention of determining: i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registrars, and ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of experiences during the implementation and monitoring stages. b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional amendment, clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN staff.

1 0

Motion to Convene WHOIS Survey WG (from the Drafting Team)
by Wendy Seltzer Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

At the request of the Chair of the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team, I submit this motion for the Council's consideration. The motion asks us to approve the formation of the WHOIS Survey WG, with the attached charter, and sets a timeline for its work. The survey will come back to Council before being sent. The motion is attached and included below: Thanks to Liz Gasster for drafting. --Wendy Draft Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… ), and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ), and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 ); Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs; Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting; Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report; Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements; Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey “Working Group”, preferring the term “Working Group” to “Drafting Team” in this case; Resolved, The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010. The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here: <insert link here> [attached] In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0