September 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

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

Updated Report of Public Comments on the UDRP Preliminary Report Published
by Margie Milam Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

Dear All, Please note that I have posted an updated Report of Public Comments on the UDRP Preliminary Issue Report for your review at the link below: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-prelim-report-udrp-3… The update includes comments from the GNSO Council Meeting in Singapore that were not included in the prior version. Best Regards, Margie _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________

1 0

WEBINAR - Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

Final Report Overview and Discussion - Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. In this webinar, members from the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) will provide ICANN stakeholder groups with an overview of the Final Report.. This report presents a proposal for ICANN to support new gTLD applicants coming from developing nations and is under consideration by ALAC and the GNSO. The report will also be available for public comment in the near future. Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: a) When should support be provided? b) Who should be approved to receive support? c) How should Support Candidates be evaluated? d) What support specifically should be offered? e) How should the overall support process work? f) How would the support process relate to the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) process? The webinar will take place on September 19th at 12.00 UTC and 22.00 UTC The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. The recording will be made available shortly after Sept 19 for the community members that are not able to attend any of the scheduled times. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, September 19th at 12.00 UTC and 22.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Karla Valente Director, gTLD Registry Programs Mobile: +1 310 936 4639 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Motion: Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation Working Group
by Rosemary Sinclair Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

> >

1 1

RE: Motion: Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation Working Group
by Rosemary Sinclair Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

Hi All Here are the links to the Motion I propose to bring to the next GNSO Council meeting I would welcome any feedback or comment from you Cheers Rosemary The motion has been added to the motion page for the Council meeting on 22 September 2011. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… and the url referring to the Charter will be added as soon as the draft charter is posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/

2 2

new ccNSO members
by Olga Cavalli Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

Hi, There are two new ccNSO members, .om (Oman) and .ph (Philippines). They are member numbers 118 and 119. Best regards Olga

1 0

NOTE THE DATE: WEBINAR- JAS WG Final Report - 19 September 12:00 UTC & 22:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 11, 2011

Sept. 11, 2011

Dear All, JAS WG Final Report Webinar Please note the date and time, details about how to join the JAS WG Final Report webinar will follow later: Date: September 19th 2011. Times: 12:00 UTC and 22:00 UTC Time for each session: 90 minutes Structure: Adobe Connect with a slide presentation (ppt) along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Sessions are duplicated. Recorded. Intro/moderators: Carlton Samuels, Rafik Dammak, Karla Valente Speakers: Avri Doria and Alan Greenberg; members from the JAS WG for the Q&A session Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-otf-dt] Outreach Task Force Draft Charter for Review
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 11, 2011

Sept. 11, 2011

Olga, thanks very much for this. Councillors, please see the message from Olga below. Please share with your respective groups in order to be able to provide any feedback to the OTF DT by October 10, as requested. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com> > Objet : [gnso-otf-dt] Outreach Task Force Draft Charter for Review > Date : 9 septembre 2011 17:14:41 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Mary Wong <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, gnso-otf-dt(a)icann.org > > Dear Stéphane, > > As chair of the Outreach Task Force Charter Drafting team, I am attaching to this email the Draft Charter in Word and PDF for review by the GNSO Council, Constituencies, and Stakeholder Groups. > > On 19 May 2011 the GNSO Council determined that the GNSO Improvements Operations Steering Committee had completed its work in producing Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO (See http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf.) The recommendations are part of the GNSO Improvements Process directed by the Board Governance Committee in its Report. (See http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…. ) The mission of the Outreach Task Force (OTF) is to develop strategies to attract new participants in GNSO activities, and identify activities that may improve the visibility, understanding and participation in the GNSO. > > The Council directed ICANN staff to invite members of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies to volunteer to form an Outreach Task Force Charter Drafting Team (OTF-DT). The members of the OTF-DT are: > > Tony Harris – ISP > Carlos Aguirre – NCA > Olga Cavalli - NCA (chair) > Amr Elsadr – NCSG > Debra Hughes - NCSG > Roy Dykes – RySG –NeuStar > > Observers: > Stephane van Gelder – GNSO Council chair > Mary Wong – GNSO Council vice chair > Jeff Neuman – GNSO Council vice chair > > Staff Support: Julie Hedlund, Gisella Gruber, and Glen de Saint Géry > > Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-otf-dt/ <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-otf-dt/> > > The OTF-DT has produced the attached Draft Charter and is seeking comments from the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. We urge you to send comments, suggestions, and questions by **10 October 2011** to Julie Hedlund at julie.hedlund(a)icann.org. > > I want to thank all members of our drafting team that worked very hard in producing this document, and also to the staff that gave support to our work, Julie, Glen and Gisella. > > If you have any doubt or question please let me know. > > Many thanks and best regards > > Olga >

2 1

Updated Pending Projects List posted on GNSO website
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 8, 2011

Sept. 8, 2011

Dear Council Members, In preparation for the GNSO Council Meeting on 22 September, the updated Pending Projects List can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf May I remind you that Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e., Wednesday, 14 September) of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 September, 2011 at 20:00 UTC. Please post any proposed motions to the Council mailing list and these will then be posted on the GNSO Council Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Phase II of Public Comments Process Enhancements
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 8, 2011

Sept. 8, 2011

Councillors, Please see the call for input below. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Objet : [soac-discussion] Phase II of Public Comments Process Enhancements > Date : 7 septembre 2011 21:09:53 HAEC > À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > > Dear ICANN Community Leaders, > > Phase II of Public Comments Process Enhancements was opened for public comments last week on 31 August 2011, as planned. > This was a milestone in the implementation plans for ATRT recommendations 15, 16 and 17. > > You can find the full announcement at: > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31aug11-en.htm > > the Public Comment box at: > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-enhancements-ii-31aug… > > and the main report linked from these at: > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comments-process-enhancements… > > > With this solicitation, we are seeking input from the ICANN Community on the following proposed constructs. > > 1) Stratification: Categorize topics to assist the community understand the subject matter and inform a participation decision. > > 2) Prioritization: Assist community members in determining the importance or urgency of a solicitation by providing key information. > > 3) Comment/Reply Cycles: Structure the community's input process into an initial period for submitting new comments followed by a separate reply period during which community respondents would be able to address and rebut arguments raised in opposing parties' previous comments. The proposed periods are minimum 30 days, followed by another 15 days' period. > > As an initial test of this concept, at the conclusion of the initial comment period (30 September) of "Phase II of Public Comments Process Enhancements", and assuming that on-topic submissions have been received, the comment period will be extended for an additional 15 days (15 October), introducing a "Reply" cycle. > > 4) Ideas on Technical Forum Improvements are also incorporated into this solicitation. We believe providing a threaded discussion environment as a complementary element to ATRT recommendations and to the three constructs above might be useful, maximizing transparency and assisting the link in the thought process between comments and corresponding replies to them. However, switching to a threaded discussion environment is a big change and we want to find out whether or not this is how Community wants to interact, via this public solicitation. Thinking we may receive good feedback about it, we already began development of a prototype Public Comment space utilizing ICANN’s Confluence Wiki platform by mid-July. If we receive enough positive community interest on the issue, we plan performing a limited community testing on such an environment during October-November period. > > Thank you again for your support in appointing volunteers for the Focus Group, who helped us by providing initial feedback on the subject matters of this solicitation. Their valuable feedback is also referred and linked within this the solicitation. > > > We hope to hear further comments from your groups on these subjects, during the public comment period. > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN >

1 0

Postcards from the EC
by William Drake Sept. 6, 2011

Sept. 6, 2011

Hi In the event anyone was puzzled by EC Commissioner de Graaf's pronouncement in Singapore that we were all engaged in "a discussion between the deaf and the stupid" and has not already seen this, thanks to Kieren we now know what hearing and smart looks like. http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-greater-government-control http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20110905_icanns_unelected_crisis/ The Commission's six “informal background papers” envision a future in which the bylaws change to make GAC advice pretty much mandatory, there are various changes to the IANA contract including NTIA's proposal on 'consensus & public interest', and governments can easily kill new gTLDs, create a reference list of censored terms, and on and on...all to begin being discussed in Dakar. BTW has there been any further consideration of the ideas floated in SF concerning Council/GAC interfacing etc? Cheers, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake(a)uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org ****************************************************

2 1

NCA house assignments
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 6, 2011

Sept. 6, 2011

Councillors, As you know, the NomCom has appointed Lanre Ajayi and Thomas Rickert to the GNSO Council. This means we will be saying goodbye to Olga and Andrei (and I know we will all want to thank them for their service), while Carlos stays with us. As usual, we must now look to the question of which house the NCAs will be assigned to. Both the NCP and the CP house therefore need to agree with the NCAs on suitable assignments and communicate them to the Council leadership in time for the Dakar meeting. Taking my Chair hat off for a minute, I would like to inform you that the Thomas has informed the CP house of his desire to be assigned there. The CP house would be delighted to welcome Thomas. Thanks, Stéphane

2 2

MOTION RE. REVISION OF THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES RELATING TO PROXY VOTING
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Sept. 6, 2011

Sept. 6, 2011

All, I'd like to propose the motion attached for approval at the next council meeting. A second would be welcome. <<Motion for Consideration - GNSO Council Operating Procedures - Proposed Revisions Proxy Voting .doc>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 3

Fwd: Information on IOD and Red Cross names
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 5, 2011

Sept. 5, 2011

Councillors, FYI. This actually came through while I was on holiday, so please excuse the delay in me sending this on to the list. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> > Objet : Information on IOD and Red Cross names > Date : 11 août 2011 22:52:50 HAEC > À : Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Amy Stathos <amy.stathos(a)icann.org>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org> > > Dear Heather and Stéphane: > > Please see the attached letter seeking to provide additional information regarding the recently discussed Red Cross and International Olympic Committee name issues. I left it as an attached document (rather than paste it into an email) to ensure all the links and formatting stayed intact. > > I hope it is helpful. Please contact me with questions. > > Thanks and regards, > > Kurt >

2 1

GNSO master calendar updated
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 2, 2011

Sept. 2, 2011

Councillors, Just to let you know that Glen has already updated our master calendar to show our new date for our next teleconference and the new deadline for motions and documents for that meeting (Sept 14). http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Please let your groups know if they do not already have the information. Thanks Glen for take care of this. Stéphane

1 0

ICC event
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 1, 2011

Sept. 1, 2011

Councillors, I have been invited by the ICC to speak at an event they are organizing at the end of September in Paris. It has been brought to my attention that I am listed on the event program as GNSO Council Chair (in addition to my position as part of the company I work for). To avoid any misunderstandings, and even though it goes without saying, I wanted to let you know that I have no intention of speaking on behalf of the Council at this event. Obviously, even when I speak in my own capacity, I remain the current Chair of the Council and people may list me as such. In this instance, I actually see additional value in this as the session I am involved in, alongside Kurt, is meant to give a very high-level explanation of the new gTLD program and the way it has come about. I am told the attendees will have very limited knowledge of ICANN, and probably none of the GNSO, so it is a good opportunity to do some outreach in that regard. Nonetheless, I wanted to make sure you were aware of this event, to ensure full transparency. Thanks, Stéphane

3 2

Useless and Wasteful Pursuit of Domain Names by Esther Dyson
by Andrei Kolesnikov Sept. 1, 2011

Sept. 1, 2011

Esther shares her thoughts in Moscow Times http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/useless-and-wasteful-pursuit-o f-domain-names/443012.html

1 0

Status of the UDRP Final Issue Report
by Margie Milam Sept. 1, 2011

Sept. 1, 2011

Dear All, The Report of Public Comments on the UDRP Preliminary Issue Report is now available for your review at the link below: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-prelim-report-udrp-3… Please note that the summary is over 30 pages long(!) reflecting the extensive comments received on the Preliminary Issue Report. I am in the process of drafting the Final Issue Report to reflect the information from the Public Comment Forum, and expect to publish it in mid-September. Best Regards, Margie _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________

2 1