September 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form easily accessible!
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2011

Sept. 23, 2011

Dear Councillors, It has been brought to our attention that the GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form that should be completed by a Stakeholder Group/Constituency Officer when a Councillor is going to be absent from a Council meeting was very difficult to find so now it is posted at the top of the GNSO Home page http://gnso.icann.org/ in a easily accessible box: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Document and motion Deadline 28 September for Council meeting on 6 October at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2011

Sept. 23, 2011

Dear Council Members, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e., Wednesday, 28 September) of the GNSO Council meeting on 6 October, 2011 at 15:00 UTC. If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at GNSO.Secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:GNSO.Secretariat@gnso.icann.org> so that they can be published on the website before the meeting. Please send motions for consideration to the GNSO Council mailing list. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from GNSO Council meeting 22 September 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2011

Sept. 23, 2011

Adobe Connect - Chat Transcription from the GNSO Council meeting on 22 September 2011 > Marika Konings:GNSO Council Meeting - 22 September 2011 > Mary Wong:Hello everyone, sorry I'm late > Zahid Jamil:thanks everyone > Zahid Jamil:hi Mary > Zahid Jamil::) > Kristina Rosette:@Jeff: Are you saying that the RySG position is that >the Council can act only on those WG recommendations that have unanimous >support? > Jeff Neuman:Not necessarily....it just requires further discussion >within our group > Jeff Neuman:8 days advance notice is not enough time to fully consider > Liz Gasster:Staff concurs with SVG! > Jeff Neuman:Any council members that have suggestions on prioritization >and how we do this, please provide input > Adrian Kinderis:good morning everyone... for the very last time > Adrian Kinderis:can't make it > Adrian Kinderis:I love that I distracted SVG... > Stephane Van Gelder:lol > Stephane Van Gelder:how bout that for multitasking! > Adrian Kinderis:I won't be on the next call (I'll be on a plane) btu I >will definitely be in Dakar (shoudl my passport come back from KL in time) > Adrian Kinderis:if it doesn't then i will be on the call actually... > Mary Wong:I'm having a devil of a time trying to get a Senegalese visa >in the US with a Singapore passport :( > Adrian Kinderis:i had to send my passport to the Senegalese Embassy in >KL > Mary Wong:Really? Why? > Zahid Jamil:will we need any innoclulations? > Zahid Jamil:something I heard not sure if its true > Jeff Neuman:Only 85% > Jeff Neuman::) > Adrian Kinderis:I have to have a few shots > Kristina Rosette:I've had a ton of shots > Zahid Jamil:yikes > Adrian Kinderis:no embassy in australia > Marika Konings:http://dakar42.icann.org/travel#travel-health > Jeff Neuman:I can second > Stephane Van Gelder:thanks > Mary Wong:I'm saying aye twice, cuz of being proxy for Bill :) > Jeff Neuman:I can second this one as well > David Taylor:Two "ff"s for Jeff... ;-) > Jeff Neuman:Or you can say Jefe > Marika Konings::-) > Jeff Neuman:(in spanish) > Jeff Neuman:We have 1 more item > Jeff Neuman:the new pdpd! > Jeff Neuman:pdp! > Olga Cavalli:sorry my line went down im calling again > Olga Cavalli:im bac > Olga Cavalli:back > Olga Cavalli:hi I have problems I got disconnected again > Olga Cavalli:calling again now > Alan Greenberg:Multiple strings - more than one on the WG, but the >problem was pulling together the slighltly different views on what should >be done, combined with those who were dead against it. > Olga Cavalli:back now > Zahid Jamil:@Alan - thanks - helps understand > Alan Greenberg:Hallelujah! > Carlos Aguirre:clap clap clap > Zahid Jamil:congrats guys! great work! > Ching Chiao:Congrats! > Debra Hughes:great job! > rafik dammak:(having pc issues, belated ) thanks :) > Zahid Jamil::) > Kristina Rosette:Thanks, Tim. > Jamie Wagner:I was disconnected again > Liz Gasster:they do call for an independent review of the survey b4 >launching > Liz Gasster:But this is a substantial amount of work and the Council >must balance all of these requests for more work > Alan Greenberg:I cannot help but feel that on any subject related to >Whois, there are always an infinite number of steps left to get to a >satisfactory end-point. > Alan Greenberg:Doesn't mean that we can't decide to JUMP when they say >so. It is our choice. > Mary Wong:@Adrian, that's the concern some NCSG members have (I just >didn't express it very well :)) Thanks also to Tim and Stephane for >clarifying! > Adrian Kinderis:well said tim! > Jeff Neuman:@Kristina: Agreed > Mary Wong:I arrive 5 a.m. Saturday a.m. :( > Jeff Neuman:ok, If others can let me know when you are getting in, that >would help > Jeff Neuman:There is a lot to cover Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 22 September 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 22 September 2011 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110922-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 22 September 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 22 September 2011 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110922-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: GNSO Council resolutions - 22 September 2011 - Correction
by Liz Gasster Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Hi all, Just a note that indeed the Whois Survey Working Group Charter motion was deferred and was erroneously noted in the previous email as passed. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:34 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions - 22 September 2011 Dear All, Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 22 September at 20:00 UTC. The Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on 'Thick' 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 report http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf) see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations; WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to 'consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July'. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or 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) 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. 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. Revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures in terms of how the proxy giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder to simplify and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies; WHEREAS, at its meeting on 22 June the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directed Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post the document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum; WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf and posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011; WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11… indicating that no comments were received; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf to simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver's appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience. RESOLVED FURTHER the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revisions into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED FURTHER that as the OSC has completed all of its tasks the GNSO Council hereby disbands the OSC and its Work Teams and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC and its Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT 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#<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 has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, 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, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG recommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, 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 remains 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. Creation of a Working Group on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (CCI): Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011; Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Cartagena ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting; Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a working group with any party interested in participating in this effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a working group be formed to produce a report for consideration by SOs /ACs to assist them to respond to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system; Resolved further, that this newly formed working group is not authorized to forward to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN Board; Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. 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; and Resolved further, that the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) is hereby approved for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) a Working Group Update is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions - 22 September 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Dear All, Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 22 September at 20:00 UTC. The Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on 'Thick' 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 report http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf) see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations; WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to 'consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July'. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or 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) 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. 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. Revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures in terms of how the proxy giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder to simplify and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies; WHEREAS, at its meeting on 22 June the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directed Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post the document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum; WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf and posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011; WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11… indicating that no comments were received; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf to simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver's appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience. RESOLVED FURTHER the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revisions into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED FURTHER that as the OSC has completed all of its tasks the GNSO Council hereby disbands the OSC and its Work Teams and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC and its Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT 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#<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 has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, 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, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG recommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, 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 remains 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. Creation of a Working Group on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (CCI): Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011; Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Cartagena ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting; Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a working group with any party interested in participating in this effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a working group be formed to produce a report for consideration by SOs /ACs to assist them to respond to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system; Resolved further, that this newly formed working group is not authorized to forward to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN Board; Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. 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; and Resolved further, that the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) is hereby approved for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) a Working Group Update is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting 2011. Approval of the charter for the 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<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200905>, 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<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-initial-repor…>, soliciting input from SOs and ACs; Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-draft-final-r…> 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<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-…>; Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise<http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19may11-en.htm> 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<https://community.icann.org/display/WSDT/Home> for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf 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: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf 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. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

JAS Final Report
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Olivier, In my capacity as GNSO Council Chair, it is my pleasure to inform you, in your capacity as ALAC Chair, that the Council voted to approve the motion shown below during its meeting today. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair 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 has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, 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, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG of therecommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, 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.

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] ICANN 42 Public Forum Topics
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Councillors, Please see the note below. Please forward it to your respective groups. I don't suppose the Council itself will wish to submit comments, but should that be the case, let's discuss on this list. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Objet : [soac-discussion] ICANN 42 Public Forum Topics > Date : 22 septembre 2011 17:08:25 HAEC > À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > Cc : "steve.crocker(a)icann.org" <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> > > [Sent on behalf of Steve Crocker] > > > Dear ICANN Community Leaders, > > We are approaching ICANN 42 in Senegal, Dakar. > > As usual, we will have a Public Forum that will take place on Thursday, 27 October 2011, where Community members can make comments and ask questions to the Board and in front of the rest of the community. > > We believe building the agenda with your input facilitates this forum process and results in a productive session with the subjects that the Community thinks are important to talk about.This has been the practice in the last couple of meetings and we would like to repeat it for Dakar Public Forum too, although rather earlier this time. > > We believe publishing the agenda as early as possible will facilitate more informed discussions during the Public Forum, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics before the meeting starts in Dakar. > > Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org) know of one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Dakar before the end of Thursday, 13 October 2011. > We will then review the suggestions, accommodate them as much as possible, combine common or related topics under one agenda topic and publish the agenda for the Public Forum after my approval. > > Thanks for your consideration and input. > > Kind regards, > Steve Crocker

1 0

Friendly Amendments to CCI WG Motion and Charter (motion 7 on the motions page)
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Rosemary and Wolf, I appreciate the amendment to the CCI WG motion to delete the word "joint." I have a few other intended friendly amendments to the motion and the Charter to be sure there is no confusion or doubt that this is a GNSO chartered WG, which are always open to all interested parties regardless of SO/AC affiliation, and to address concerns regarding the timing of the report. Friendly amendments to the motion: 1. Replace "of these SO/ACs" with "party" in the third/last Whereas. 2. Replace "at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011" with "as soon after the ICANN Dakar Meeting as reasonably possible" in the fifth (second to last) Resolve. At this point in time it doesn't seem likely that this WG can form, select a chair, have substantive discussions, etc. and still produce a report by Dakar. 3. Strike the last Resolve entirely. Friendly amendments to the Charter: 1. Title: change to "GNSO Working Group (WG) Charter." 2. Chartering Organization(s): change to "GNSO" only. 3. Deliverables & Timeframes: change "by the ICANN Dakar Meeting" to "as soon after the ICANN Dakar Meeting as reasonably possible." 4. Membership Criteria: change to "The CCI WG will be open to all interested parties." 5. Group Formation, Dependencies, & Dissolution: change to "This WG will be formed as a GNSO chartered Working Group." Finally, just a comment. I guess it works, but it seems redundant to include excerpts from the GNSO WG Guidelines. IMO, charters should simply state that those Guidelines apply and go into detail only where it is proposing a departure from those guidelines with appropriate reasoning. Thanks, Tim

5 9

RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to CCI WG Motion and Charter (motion 7 on the motions page)
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Got it. Understood. Thanks Rosemary. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to CCI WG Motion and Charter (motion 7 on the motions page) From: Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair(a)unsw.edu.au> Date: Thu, September 22, 2011 3:36 pm To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I'm OK with these amendments except re the Update ....we will be in a position to provide an Update (not a report) at Dakar So the amendment at Resolved 5 could be ...WG Update.....at Dakar..... Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Director, External Relations Australian School of Business UNSW +61 413 734490 On 23/09/2011, at 2:53 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> wrote: > > Rosemary and Wolf, > > I appreciate the amendment to the CCI WG motion to delete the word > "joint." I have a few other intended friendly amendments to the motion > and the Charter to be sure there is no confusion or doubt that this is a > GNSO chartered WG, which are always open to all interested parties > regardless of SO/AC affiliation, and to address concerns regarding the > timing of the report. > > Friendly amendments to the motion: > > 1. Replace "of these SO/ACs" with "party" in the third/last Whereas. > > 2. Replace "at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011" with "as soon > after the ICANN Dakar Meeting as reasonably possible" in the fifth > (second to last) Resolve. At this point in time it doesn't seem likely > that this WG can form, select a chair, have substantive discussions, > etc. and still produce a report by Dakar. > > 3. Strike the last Resolve entirely. > > Friendly amendments to the Charter: > > 1. Title: change to "GNSO Working Group (WG) Charter." > > 2. Chartering Organization(s): change to "GNSO" only. > > 3. Deliverables & Timeframes: change "by the ICANN Dakar Meeting" to "as > soon after the ICANN Dakar Meeting as reasonably possible." > > 4. Membership Criteria: change to "The CCI WG will be open to all > interested parties." > > 5. Group Formation, Dependencies, & Dissolution: change to "This WG will > be formed as a GNSO chartered Working Group." > > Finally, just a comment. I guess it works, but it seems redundant to > include excerpts from the GNSO WG Guidelines. IMO, charters should > simply state that those Guidelines apply and go into detail only where > it is proposing a departure from those guidelines with appropriate > reasoning. > > Thanks, > Tim > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Amendment to the RrSG motion (motion 8 on the motions page)
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Thank you Carlos. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Amendment to the RrSG motion (motion 8 on the motions page) From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> Date: Thu, September 22, 2011 1:23 pm To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Tim: I accept the amendment as friendly. Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org > From: tim(a)godaddy.com > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Amendment to the RrSG motion (motion 8 on the motions page) > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:01:54 -0700 > > > After further discussion within our SG we have been asked to amend our > motion (motion 8 on the motions page) as follows: > > 1. REPLACE "NOW THEREFORE, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN > Board of Directors that:" WITH "RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an > Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or > additions:" > > 2. Strike the section labeled 5. altogether. > > I accept those changes as friendly and hopefully Carlos will as well. > This will direct things officially down the PDP path. We can discuss > further on today's call. > > Tim > > The motion would then read in its entirety as follows: > > ---------- > > 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; > > RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following > possible policy revisions and/or additions: > > 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. > > >

2 1

Amendment to the RrSG motion (motion 8 on the motions page)
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

After further discussion within our SG we have been asked to amend our motion (motion 8 on the motions page) as follows: 1. REPLACE "NOW THEREFORE, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:" WITH "RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions:" 2. Strike the section labeled 5. altogether. I accept those changes as friendly and hopefully Carlos will as well. This will direct things officially down the PDP path. We can discuss further on today's call. Tim The motion would then read in its entirety as follows: ---------- 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; RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions: 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.

2 1

Amber Sterling SOI - temporary alternate for Debra Hughes at 22 Sept. Council meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

1) Please enter your Name: Amber Sterling 2) Stakeholder Group: NCSG 3) Constituency: NPOC 4) Please identify your current employer(s): Association of American Medical Colleges 5) Please identify your current position(s): Senior Intellectual Property Specialist 6) Please identify the type(s) of work performed: Paralegal - manage the association's contracts intellectual property portfolios 7) Please identify your declared country of primary residence (e.g., country to which you pay taxes): United States 8) Please list any financial relationship beyond de minimus stock ownership you may have with any company that to your knowledge has a financial relationship or contract with ICANN: n/a 9) Do you believe you are participating in the GNSO policy process as a representative of any individual or entity, whether paid or unpaid? Yes If the answer is "Yes," please provide the name of the represented individual or entity. (If professional ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, please enter "Private"): Association of American Medical Colleges 10) Please identify any other relevant arrangements, interests, or benefits as requested in the following two questions: a) Do you have any type of material interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? No If the answer is "yes," please describe the material interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes: 12) Please identify any Working Groups or other chartered teams in which you are participating (include acronyms, if applicable): n/a 13) Additional Information (optional): Thanks, Amber Amber Sterling Senior Intellectual Property Specialist Association of American Medical Colleges Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#61]
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mercredi 21 septembre 2011 17:30 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#61] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, September 21, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Acting/Interim Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Wendy Seltzer is unable to attend the GNSO teleconference on 22 Sept 2011. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all votes to be held during this teleconference. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, September 23, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Rafik Dammak

3 2

ICANN Board resolutions from 17 Sept 2011
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Hello All, Below are the Board resolutions from our recent meeting in Los Angeles. They are mainly administrative in nature - e.g approving leases, and approving the appointment of a new CFO. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-17sep11-en.htm Board Resolutions 17 September 2011 * Note: Where available, draft Rationale of the Board's actions is presented under the associated Resolution. The draft Rationale is not final until approved with the minutes of the Board meeting. 1.Approval of Investment Manager Selection Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.01 2.Approval of International Banking Relationship Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.02 3.Approval of ICANN Marina Del Rey Real Estate Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.04 4.Approval of ICANN Brussels Real Estate Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.06 5.Appointment of Chief Financial Officer Rationale for Resolutions 2011.09.17.08 - 2011.09.17.09 6.CEO Succession Planning Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.10 7.Board-GAC JWG Final Report Recommendations Rationale for Resolutions 2011.09.17.11 - 2011.09.17.12 1. Approval of Investment Manager Selection =========================================== Whereas, the Board Finance Committee directed staff to issue an RFI seeking information from professional investment management firms on the investment policies and strategies available to ICANN to optimize the management of the ICANN Reserve Fund. Whereas, five responses to ICANN's RFI from qualified investment firms were received. Whereas, staff reviewed all responses to the RFI, interviewed all five investment firms, and determined that State Street Global Advisors was the preferred investment firm to manage ICANN's Reserve Fund. Whereas, the ICANN Board Finance Committee received a presentation from State Street Global Advisors in Singapore. Whereas, the ICANN Board Finance Committee met in Los Angeles on 15 September 2011 to discuss the selection of ICANN's new Reserve Fund manager and recommended that the Board authorize the CFO or the COO to engage State Street Global Advisors to serve as ICANN's Reserve Fund manager in compliance with ICANN's Investment Policy Statement. Resolved (2011.09.17.01), the Board authorizes the CFO or the COO to engage State Street Global Advisors to serve as ICANN's Reserve Fund manager in compliance with ICANN's Investment Policy Statement, authorizes the CFO or the COO to transfer the funds from ICANN's current Reserve Fund manager to State Street Global Advisors, and authorizes the CFO or the COO to terminate ICANN's current Reserve Fund manager. Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.01 In accordance with resolution 07.100, the Board authorized staff to engage an investment firm to manage ICANN's Reserve Fund. In furtherance of its due diligence, ICANN reviewed the performance and value added services provided by its current Reserve Fund manager. It was determined that, in order to increase accountability and transparency, ICANN should issue an RFI and solicit responses from various investment firms, including the incumbent firm. Five responses to ICANN's RFI from qualified investment firms were received. ICANN reviewed all responses to the RFI and interviewed all five investment firms. Through the selection process, staff determined that State Street Global Advisors offered the best overall combination of services, reporting, expertise, and fee structure. The Board Finance Committee (BFC) received a presentation from State Street Global Advisors during their meeting in Singapore. On 15 September 2011, the BFC discussed the selection of ICANN's new Reserve Fund manager and recommended that the Board authorize the CFO or the COO to engage State Street Global Advisors to serve as ICANN's Reserve Fund manager in compliance with ICANN's Investment Policy Statement. The suggested change is not expected to have any direct effect on the public. It is not expected to have any fiscal impact, or any impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the Domain Name System. 2. Approval of International Banking Relationship =================================================== Whereas, ICANN wishes to operate banking transactions out of its Southern California, Brussels, and Sydney office in their respective local currencies. Whereas, staff explored various possibilities, including current banking partners. Whereas, staff review determined that HSBC is the most suitable bank to manage ICANN's domestic and international banking needs. Whereas, the ICANN Board Finance Committee met in Los Angeles on 15 September 2011 to discuss the selection of ICANN's new banking partner, and recommended that the Board approve HSBC as ICANN's new banking partner and authorize the CFO or the COO to open all necessary domestic and international accounts. Resolved (2011.09.17.02), the Board approves HSBC as ICANN's new banking partner, authorizes the CFO or the COO to open all necessary domestic and international accounts, authorizes the CFO or the COO to transfer all ICANN operational funds to HSBC, and authorizes the CFO or the COO to terminate any or all of ICANN's existing operational banking relationship(s). Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.02 ICANN wishes to operate banking transactions out of its international offices as well as in Southern California, as efficiently as possible. Staff explored various possibilities, including current banking partners. Staff analysis included a review of each bank's relationship with its international offices, its overall global reach, and the ability to manage all accounts from one web portal. Through the selection process, it was determined that HSBC offered the best overall combination of services, international presence, and consolidated account management tools, at a competitive fee structure. HSBC also has the largest international footprint. The suggested change may have a positive effect on the public as a result of the simplification of internal operations, thereby improving ICANN's ability to support the public interest. No fiscal impact is expected from this resolution. There will not be any impact on the security, stability and resilience of the Domain Name System. 3. Approval of ICANN Marina Del Rey Real Estate ================================================= Whereas, ICANN's current lease in Marina del Rey expires 30 June 2012. Whereas, ICANN's primary operations and staff are located in the greater Los Angeles area. Whereas, current and future office space needs for primary operations will be at least 27,000 square feet. Whereas, ICANN has an organizational benefit being located in and about a primary technology center. Resolved (2011.09.17.04), the ICANN Board authorizes the CEO and COO to negotiate for and finalize a lease for office space in Southern California [REDACTED] Resolved (2011.09.17.05), the Board approves the redaction of the details of the Resolution 2011.09.17.04 and corresponding rationale pending completion of negotiations. Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.04 ICANN's lease for office space in Marina del Rey is expiring 30 June 2012. In addition to the expiration of the lease, the amount of space ICANN has been leasing is insufficient to meet anticipated future needs, particularly with the launch of the New gTLD program. Alternatives considered included purchasing a building, leasing additional space (if available) in the current location, and leasing space in an alternative location. [REDACTED] This Board action should not have any impact on accountability and transparency or any effect on the public, except that ICANN staff members should have more and sufficient space within which to perform their duties in furtherance of the public interest. There will not be any significant variance to pre-planned expenditures. Annual expenses for any new lease will be included in future annual budgets and reported in future annual financial reports. This Board action will have no impact on security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system. 4. Approval of ICANN Brussels Real Estate ============================================ Whereas, ICANN's currently leases space on a temporary basis from Regus at 6 Rond Schuman, Brussels; Whereas, ICANN is committed to maintaining and expanding an office in Brussels; Whereas, current and future office space needs for primary operations will be at least 450 square meters, Whereas, ICANN has an organizational benefit being located in the central European district of Brussels, Resolved (2011.09.17.06), the ICANN Board authorizes the CEO and COO to negotiate for and finalize a lease for office space [REDACTED]. Resolved (2011.09.17.07), the Board approves the redaction of the details of the Resolution 2011.09.17.06 and corresponding rationale pending completion of negotiations. Rationale for Resolutions 2011.09.17.06 ICANN leases space through a full service office suite (Regus) in Brussels. Lease terms can be month to month or for longer periods of time. The office suite environment means ICANN has private offices but shares many common amenities including conference rooms, mail/shipping/receiving center, copier, reception area and more. Rent includes many services (whether used or not) and certain services (such as conference room use) are on a "pay as used" basis. ICANN wishes to continue to build its global presence and the Brussels office is part of that plan. It is anticipated that additional staff will be hired to work out of the Brussels office. This will require additional space. [REDACTED] This Board action should not have any impact on accountability and transparency or any effect on the public, except that ICANN staff members should have more and sufficient space within which to perform their duties in furtherance of the public interest. There will not be any significant variance to pre-planned expenditures. Annual expenses for any new lease will be included in future annual budgets and reported in future annual financial reports. This Board action will have no impact on security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system. 5. Appointment of Chief Financial Officer ========================================== Prior to considering this item, all members of the Board confirmed that they are free from a conflict in voting on the appointment of the CFO. Whereas, the attraction and retention of high calibre staff is essential to ICANN's operations and ICANN desires to ensure competitive compensation for staff. Whereas, Xavier J. Calvez has been identified through a vigorous global search and senior management agrees that he is the right candidate to fill the role of Chief Financial Officer. Whereas, independent market data provided by outside compensation consultants indicates that the compensation, including at-risk compensation, for a Chief Financial Officer would fall between [REDACTED] at the 50th percentile and [REDACTED] at the 75th percentile. Whereas, the Compensation Committee has recommended that the Board approve this compensation package for Xavier J. Calvez. Resolved (2011.09.17.08), the Board hereby appoints Xavier J. Calvez as an Officer of the Company in the position of Chief Financial Officer effective 17 September 2011. Resolved (2011.09.17.09), the Board authorizes a starting compensation package for Xavier J. Calvez to consist of: (i) a base salary of US $250,000 per year; (ii) an at-risk compensation opportunity of 30% of base salary per year to be paid in a manner consistent with other U.S. based staff and in accordance with the company's bonus program; and (iii) the standard benefit programs made available to all other regular full time U.S. based staff. Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.08 - 2011.09.17.09 ICANN has been without a full time Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for several months. In order to fill the CFO position, ICANN engaged a global search firm and conducted a global search. The search firm screened dozens of applicants, several of whom were interviewed by senior management, and two were interviewed by one or more Board members. Mr. Calvez is an experienced finance professional with extensive international experience. Born in France, Mr. Calvez has had a progressive career with KPMG (France), Deloitte (France and USA), and most recently for the past nine years with Technicolor (France and the USA where he most recently served as Chief Financial Officer, Network Services Division and then Chief Financial Officer, Creative Services Division. Mr. Calvez is fluent in French and English, has a degree in Finance & Accounting from Université de Bretagne Occidentale, a Masters in Business, Finance & Accounting from Université du Maine, and is an Expert Compatable Memorialiste (the French equivalent to a CPA in the United States). Hiring such a highly qualified individual to serve the role of CFO will have a positive impact on the organization's ability to serve the public interest. While this engagement will have a fiscal impact on the organization, the level of compensation called for within this resolution is contemplated in the current budget. This action will not have any impact on the stability, security or resiliency of the domain names system. 6. CEO Succession Planning ============================= Whereas, ICANN's CEO and President announced his intention to leave ICANN at the conclusion of his term, on 1 July 2012. Whereas the Board has initiated planning for the CEO succession process. RESOLVED (2011.09.17.10) the Board Governance Committee is directed to recommend a slate of Board members to comprise a CEO Search Process Management Work Committee for the Board to consider at its next meeting. Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.10 The ICANN Board has begun a process for planning for the CEO succession process, to assist in transition of the leadership. The establishment of a work committee will allow the Board to coordinate this process with regular reporting to the Board as a whole, as well as reviewing opportunities for involvement in the community in the CEO succession process. Timely succession of the ICANN CEO will assist the organization in maintaining its work in overseeing the security and the stability of the DNS. The establishment of the work committee will not have a financial impact on ICANN, though resources are likely to be required at later points in the process. 7.Board-GAC JWG Final Report Recommendations ============================================== Whereas after review of the public comment on the Final Report of the Board-GAC Joint Working Group (JWG), the Board agrees that the recommendations within the Final Report should be implemented in complement to the GAC-related recommendations from the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). Whereas the Board and the GAC have continued work to do to oversee the implementation the recommendations in the Final Report and the GAC-related recommendations from ATRT. Whereas the JWG was previously tasked with the oversight of the GAC-related recommendations from the ATRT. Whereas the JWG was dissolved after the Board received the Final Report. Resolved (2011.09.17.11) the Board directs the Board Governance Committee to recommend the composition of a working group of the Board to lead the Board's coordination with the GAC on the implementation of recommendations of the JWG and the GAC-related recommendations of the ATRT. Resolved (2011.09.17.12) the CEO is directed to provide staff support as necessary to complete implementation of the recommendations. Rationale for Resolution 2011.09.17.11 - 2011.09.17.12 The work of the Board-GAC Joint Working Group and the Accountability and Transparency Review Team are both important to enhancing the relationship between the Board and the GAC. This resolution will provide a formal mechanism to oversee the implementation of the recommendations. This action will not impact the security and stability of the Internet, and is not expected to have an impact on ICANN's resources.

1 0

a second
by john＠crediblecontext.com Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

3 2

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#60]
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mercredi 21 septembre 2011 15:52 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#60] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, September 21, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Acting/Interim Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * William Drake is unable to attend the GNSO Teleconference on 22 September 2011. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all votes to be taken during the meeting. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, September 23, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Mary Wong

1 0

RESEND: [council] Proposed Amendments to JAS Motion
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

I tried to send this yesterday but it didn't get through due to a change my ISP made... Alan At 19/09/2011 11:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Just for the record, that is in line with what >the ALAC did with the second milestone report. >We forwarded the report to the Board and >reserved our right to provide comments on it at >a slightly later date (in that case before the >Board retreat, but after the report submission date). > >Alan > >At 19/09/2011 10:25 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>Sure thing Rafik. I will do my best to explain >>the changes. All of the changes center around >>the fact that we want to send this report to >>the Board after the meeting this Thursday and >>not delay their consideration of the >>contents. However, due to the fact that we >>just got the report, we cannot as a council >>state that we have digested all of its contents >>nor have we had enough time as a community to >>state that we agree with all of the >>recommendations. In addition, we want to >>reserve the right as a community and as a >>council to provide comments on any >>implementation of the recommendations developed by staff. >> >>We also ask that staff begin developing an >>implementation plan (just changing the words >>from âbegin working on an implementation of >>the recommendationsâ to âdevelop an >>implementation plan following the JAS WG >>recommendations, subject to comments received >>from the GNSO communityâ). This highlights >>the fact that comments may not be comments from >>the Council, but can be from SOs, >>constituencies, etc. IN fact, you have already >>seen some comments and questions from the Registries this past weekend. >> >>Thatâs pretty much it. We want the staff and >>board to get this ASAP (and realize the ALAC >>will likely forward to the board anyway), but >>want to reserve all of our rights to provide >>comment and input on this report and any implementation. >> >>I hope that helps. >> >> >> >> >>Jeffrey J. Neuman >>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy >> >> >> >>The information contained in this e-mail >>message is intended only for the use of the >>recipient(s) named above and may contain >>confidential and/or privileged information. If >>you are not the intended recipient you have >>received this e-mail message in error and any >>review, dissemination, distribution, or copying >>of this message is strictly prohibited. If you >>have received this communication in error, >>please notify us immediately and delete the original message. >> >> >>From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] >>Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 3:22 PM >>To: Neuman, Jeff >>Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org >>Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Amendments to JAS Motion >> >>Hello Jeff, >> >>thank you for your comments and amendments, >>they looks friendly and didn't hear any objection in the WG. >>but I would like to have more explanations and >>reasons about those amendments in whereas and >>resolved parts and their implications on the >>report. that will help me to have better understanding. >> >>Best, >> >>Rafik >> >>2011/9/17 Neuman, Jeff >><<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >>All, >> >>Please find enclosed proposed Amendments to the >>JAS motion from the gTLD Registries Stakeholder >>Group. All of the changes are in red in the >>word document and should not be controversial >>and I hope will be taken as friendly. >> >>First and foremost, we want to recognize the >>hard work of the JAS Working Group and make >>sure that the work product gets to the ICANN >>staff and board for their consideration without >>implying that we, the GNSO Council or >>community, necessarily endorse all of the >>contents therein because of the little time we >>have had to review. That said, we would like >>to see the ICANN staff begin working on an >>implementation plan of the recommendations, >>publish that plan out for public comment, and >>do so in time to discuss in Dakar and launch >>the new gTLD Application Process in January. >> >>I hope everyone finds these amendments in the >>spirit in which they were intended >>appreciative of the hard work oof JAS, >>supportive of providing support to applicants >>from developing economies and wanting the >>application period to begin on schedule in January. >> >>Thanks. >> >> >>Jeffrey J. Neuman >>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy >>21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 >>Office: >><tel:%2B1.571.434.5772>+1.571.434.5772 Mobile: >><tel:%2B1.202.549.5079>+1.202.549.5079 Fax: >><tel:%2B1.703.738.7965>+1.703.738.7965 / >><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >> >>The information contained in this e-mail >>message is intended only for the use of the >>recipient(s) named above and may contain >>confidential and/or privileged information. If >>you are not the intended recipient you have >>received this e-mail message in error and any >>review, dissemination, distribution, or copying >>of this message is strictly prohibited. If you >>have received this communication in error, >>please notify us immediately and delete the original message. >> >>

1 0

Notice on Statement of Interest SOI Procedures
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 20, 2011

Sept. 20, 2011

Dear GNSO Councilors and Community Members, According to the GNSO Operating Procedures <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf>, Chapter 5-Statements of Interest, Section 5.3.2-Electronic Form and Publication, "To ensure consistency, ICANN Staff shall develop, maintain, and provide to Relevant Parties an electronic Statement of Interest form including procedures and instructions pertaining to its completion online." To comply with the requirement for an online form, the ICANN staff worked with the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation to develop the form. After much testing, the form is ready for GNSO individuals in newly chartered Working Groups and GNSO Councilors to use, both to enter new Statements of Interest (SOIs), and to provide changes to SOIs Note in particular that revised SOIs provided with the new online form will replace the SOIs created under the old procedures, although these previous SOIs will still exist in the archives. The features of the new online form include: * All SOIs located in one convenient area within the official GNSO Wiki site; * An online form set up according to the new SOI procedures; * The option for the person creating the SOI to restrict editing rights once the new SOI page has been created; * The ability for Working Groups and teams to reference the Wiki SOI page link when building a membership roster; and * The ability to browse and search all SOIs in the Wiki space. The SOI Wiki site is located at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/GNSO+Statements+of+Interest+%28…. You will need to use your Confluence Login ID and Password to access this space within the Wiki site. If you are a new Confluence user these will be provided to you. If you have already been given a Confluence Login ID and Password but cannot locate them please let us know. We do encourage you to provide feedback on your use of the form so that we can continue to make improvements. Please send your comments and questions to Julie Hedlund, Policy Director, at julie.hedlund(a)icann.org. Warm regards, Glen Glen de Saint Gery GNSO Secretariat

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#59]
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 20, 2011

Sept. 20, 2011

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mardi 20 septembre 2011 19:37 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#59] Name of Officer: * Avri Doria Officer Email Address: * avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, September 20, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Acting/Interim NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Debbie Hughes cannot attend the first part of the meeting and has made this request. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all issues that come up until such time as Debbie can arrive at the meeting. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, September 23, 2011 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Amber Sterling Temporary Alternate Email Address: * asterling(a)aamc.org<mailto:asterling@aamc.org>

1 0

Pre-Dakar ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 20, 2011

Sept. 20, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20sep11-en.htm Pre-Dakar ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 20 September 2011 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Dakar remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday 13 October at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 13 October at 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Issue Report (GNSO) * Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (GNSO) * Recent WHOIS work * Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories (ccNSO) * Framework of Interpretation Working Group for the delegation and re delegation of ccTLDs (ccNSO) * Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. 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 the 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC or Thursday at 19.00 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed Amendments to JAS Motion
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 20, 2011

Sept. 20, 2011

All, Please find enclosed proposed Amendments to the JAS motion from the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group. All of the changes are in red in the word document and should not be controversial and I hope will be taken as friendly. First and foremost, we want to recognize the hard work of the JAS Working Group and make sure that the work product gets to the ICANN staff and board for their consideration without implying that we, the GNSO Council or community, necessarily endorse all of the contents therein because of the little time we have had to review. That said, we would like to see the ICANN staff begin working on an implementation plan of the recommendations, publish that plan out for public comment, and do so in time to discuss in Dakar and launch the new gTLD Application Process in January. I hope everyone finds these amendments in the spirit in which they were intended - appreciative of the hard work of JAS, supportive of providing support to applicants from developing economies and wanting the application period to begin on schedule in January. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

2 3

New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 2011 Sept 19
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-19sep11-en.htm New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 2011 Sept 19 19 September 2011 On 20 June 2011 the ICANN Board voted to approve the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD Program. Having concluded the detailed stakeholder discussions on policy and implementation for this program, ICANN is preparing for its launch: applications for new gTLDs are planned to be accepted 12 January - 12 April 2012. (Note: all applicants must at least register in the online application system by 29 March 2012.) The Applicant Guidebook is a comprehensive guide for applicants that describes the New Generic Top-Level Domain program's requirements and evaluation processes. The Applicant Guidebook has been developed and improved through extensive public review by specialized working groups and ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Each draft has been accompanied by extensive public comment analyses, explanatory memoranda, and independent reports. The modifications made to this version of the guidebook (version 2011-07-29) are primarily limited to changes directed by the Board resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm> from the 20 June meeting in Singapore. What's next? The Applicant Guidebook is intended to be an inclusive guide and will be regularly updated as aspects of the process are deemed necessary and are implemented. In addition to the Applicant Guidebook, a summary of changes since the last version and a discussion version of a process for amending the Applicant Guidebook are also posted. There are certain areas where work is still ongoing, such as: whether single character Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) can be delegated as TLDs, ensuring continued registry operation through a continued operations instrument, and providing support for needy applicants through the work of the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) working group. As to the last issue, the Board is committed to providing support for applicants from developing countries, and the JAS working group has recommended the criteria for that support. ICANN is launching the first phase of an Applicant Support Program<http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support>. This online work space was created to connect potential applicants who wish to establish a new public interest gTLD registry in their community with organizations who wish to offer either financial or non-financial assistance. Check the site regularly, as we will continue to add tools and resources. Below you will find the complete version of the Applicant Guidebook. New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 2011 Sept 19 Presented in Full and by Module [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rfp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 2011 Sept 19<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rfp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 3.6 MB] Module 1 [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/intro-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>Introduction to the gTLD Application Process<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/intro-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 688 KB] Module 2 [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-procedures-clean-19sep1…>Evaluation Procedures<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-procedures-clean-19sep1…> [PDF, 919 KB] Key Content [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-questions-criteria-clea…>Evaluation Questions and Criteria<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-questions-criteria-clea…> [PDF, 725 KB] Module 3 [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/objection-procedures-clean-19sep11…>Objection Procedures<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/objection-procedures-clean-19sep11…> [PDF, 315 KB] Key Content [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/new-gtld-drp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/new-gtld-drp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 128 KB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-icdr-fees-clean-19sep11-en.p…>Draft ICDR Fees<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-icdr-fees-clean-19sep11-en.p…> [PDF, 23 KB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-icdr-rules-clean-19sep11-en.…>Draft ICDR Rules<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-icdr-rules-clean-19sep11-en.…> [PDF, 30 KB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-fees-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>WIPO Fees<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-fees-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 32 KB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-rules-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>WIPO Rules<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-rules-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 43 KB] Module 4 [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/string-contention-clean-19sep11-en…>String Contention Procedures<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/string-contention-clean-19sep11-en…> [PDF, 621 KB] Module 5 [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/transition-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>Transition to Delegation<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/transition-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 364 KB] Key Content [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agreement-specs-clean-19sep11-en.p…>Base Agreement & Specifications<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agreement-specs-clean-19sep11-en.p…> [PDF, 4.5 MB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/urs-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>Uniform Rapid Suspension<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/urs-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 169 KB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-clean-19se…>Trademark Clearinghouse<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-clean-19se…> [PDF, 550 KB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/pddrp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 406 KB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rrdrp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>Registry Restriction Dispute Resolution (RRDRP)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rrdrp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 135 KB] Module 6 [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/terms-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>Application Terms & Conditions<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/terms-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 267 KB] Supporting Material [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-changes-applicant-guideboo…>Summary of Changes to the Applicant Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-changes-applicant-guideboo…> [PDF, 422 KB] [cid:image001.png@01CC7731.D970C150]<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/change-review-applicant-guidebook-…>Change Review Process: New gTLD Applicant Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/change-review-applicant-guidebook-…> [PDF, 271 KB] For questions about the New gTLD Program, please email newgtld(a)icann.org<mailto:newgtld@icann.org> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Supporting New gTLD Applicants, Including Those From Developing Economies
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-19sep11-en.htm Supporting New gTLD Applicants, Including Those From Developing Economies 19 September 2011 This program seeks to facilitate partnerships with those seeking assistance in launching a new gTLD with those in the community able and eager to provide assistance. These partnerships can play an important role in achieving a new gTLD Program goal of increasing global diversity and participation in the Domain Name System. ICANN is launching a program where established organizations can apply to operate a generic top-level domain (gTLD) of their choosing. Operating a gTLD is a technology based service comprised of many requirements and expenses, e.g., acquiring equipment, establishing operations, hiring and training staff and providing customer service. Some entities planning to apply for and operate a TLD may seek technical or financial information or assistance to facilitate establishment of a new registry. The ICANN community is rich with talented, experienced and resourced participants who may be interested in helping others who seek such assistance. ICANN is seeking to facilitate cooperation among those entities seeking to establish a gTLD registry that serves the public interest and those entities willing and able to provide assistance to those entities. This page is intended to establish connections across both types of organizations by providing a "landing" page, where entities can state whether they are seeking or able to provide assistance. The page will contain contact information so that parties may contact one another. While applicants from developing countries are encouraged to participate, no applicants will be disqualified from participating based on location. The Internet community is strongly urged to pass this information along to interested parties. Program Information For new gTLD applicants, including those from developing economies, who seek assistance to set up a new gTLD registry, this page can provide a connection to organizations interested in providing such assistance. Here you will find links to two work spaces: 1. New gTLD applicants seeking assistance in meeting the requirements of the new gTLD program.<http://forms.icann.org/gtld/gtld-candidate.php> 2. Organizations interested in assisting applicants with pro bono work, in-kind support or grants<http://forms.icann.org/gtld/gtld-organization.php>. Note: This page is not intended to market third party consulting services nor future gTLD applicants or extensions. The lists of participants are composed through a self-electing process and are not validated nor endorsed by ICANN. ICANN provides no warranties and takes no responsibility for the quality, legitimacy, or connection between the parties. Examples of the types of non-financial support organizations can provide include: * New gTLD Program application writing and application process * Logistical assistance * Technical help * Legal and filing support * Registry back-end services * Infrastructure or advice for providing IPv6 compatibility; IPV6 compatible hardware/networks * DNS services * IDN implementation support * DNSSEC consulting * Translations * Training - in areas like building a sustainability plan, marketing, and operations. Organizations offering to provide assistance should give a specific description of the kind of support offered so as to better inform candidates as to the types of assistance available. Organizations participating in this space have the responsibility to keep all the information up to date and can request update via e-mail to candidate-support(a)icann.org<mailto:candidate-support@icann.org>. If a party wants to withdraw the name from website, needs to formally request via email to candidate-support(a)icann.org<mailto:candidate-support@icann.org>. This initiative is part of the Applicant Support Program that is currently under development. More details will be available soon. As the launch of the New gTLD Program is scheduled for January 2012, organizations that wish to be part of this Directory should submit information as soon as possible. Important: * The Applicant Support listings are a free community service facilitated by ICANN. ICANN does not control the content or third party site links in any listing and does not endorse or support any organization listed. Listing information may not be current or up to date. * We encourage all users to exercise care when dealing with any listed organization. Please check our FAQs<http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support/faqs> for more details about the directory. You may report any suspicious listing or behavior to candidate-support(a)icann.org<mailto:candidate-support@icann.org>. * A complete list of terms and conditions may be found on the Directory Submission Form Enroll now as one of the following: Applicant seeking pro bono assistance<http://forms.icann.org/gtld/gtld-candidate.php> Provider of pro bono assistance<http://forms.icann.org/gtld/gtld-organization.php> For the Applicant Support Directory go here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=23396551>. For information about the New gTLD Program, go here<http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0