September 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN Launches New Online Information Center for New Generic Top-Level Domains
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-19sep11-en.htm ICANN Launches New Online Information Center for New Generic Top-Level Domains 19 September 2011 ICANN has just launched a new "micro-site" as the online home for information about the New Generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLDs) Program. You can access the site from a button on the home page of ICANN.ORG, or go directly to http://newgtlds.icann.org/. Resources for Everyone The micro-site is designed to help everyone interested in new gTLDs, regardless of their level of knowledge. · Unfamiliar with ICANN and domain names? You can find basic material under the "About" tab. · Wondering whether your organization should apply to operate a new gTLD? You will find helpful information under the "Applicants" tab. It offers a wide range of educational materials, including interviews with CEOs of current Internet registries about what you'll need to know, and presentations on how to complete the application form. · Seeking financial or in-kind assistance? Potential applicants, including those in developing economies, can learn about financial and non-financial assistance through the Applicant Support Program. · What is the status of your gTLD application? Beginning in January 2012, you can track the progress of your application under the "Program Status" tab. This is where all new gTLDs that have been applied for will be publicly posted. · Are you a journalist? Or just looking for the latest news? Check out the "Announcements & Media" to see the latest new gTLD-related developments, and learn about upcoming events. If you intend to apply for a new gTLD, the Applicant Guidebook and access to the TLD Application System (TAS) are available from any page on the micro-site. This is just the beginning! Much more information and online tools are just a click away at http://newgtlds.icann.org/. Multilingual Commitment The new site is not solely for English speakers. Many new gTLD-related resources are available in other languages, including Fact Sheets and presentations, with many more translations coming. All important program materials will continue to be posted in six UN languages. Applicant Support Program Seeking to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive and accessible to all parts of the world, the ICANN community has created a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants, particularly those from developing economies as they apply for and operate new gTLDs. The Applicant Support Program will provide financial and non-financial support to qualified applicants registered or residing in developing countries, and potentially to others. Raising Global Awareness ICANN is in the midst of a major campaign to raise awareness around the world about the impact and possibilities of new gTLDs. The new site represents a foundational expression of the campaign. Many more new articles, tools, and materials will be made available in the coming days and weeks. To stay abreast of the latest developments related to new gTLDs, from now on, your most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive resource is http://newgtlds.icann.org/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting: 20-21 September 2011 Marina del Rey
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19sep11-en.htm WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting: 20-21 September 2011 Marina del Rey 19 September 2011 With a view to issuing a draft final report by the ICANN Dakar meeting, the WHOIS Policy Review Team will hold a two-day face-to-face meeting in Marina del Rey (Los Angeles) on 20-21 September 2011. Silent observers are more than welcome to remotely attend this session. Comments, however, will not be taken and should be submitted during the next WHOIS Review Team's Interaction with the Community session that will be held in Dakar on Wednesday, 26 October (foreseen timeslot: 14:30-16:00). For the Marina del Rey meeting details, please refer to the following wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Marina+del+Rey+Meeting The Review Team also invites the Community to visit its public wiki for more information on its activities: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team Background The WHOIS Policy Review Team<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team> was launched in October 2010 in line with the Affirmation of Commitments<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm> (AoC) provisions, section 9.3.1, which stipulates that: "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. [...]. The WHOIS Policy Review Team is composed of ten SO/AC representatives, two independent experts, one Law Enforcement representative, the ICANN President and CEO (Selector)'s designated nominee, and the Chair of the GAC (Selector)'s designated nominee. For full reference, please consult :http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/composition-4-en.htm. In March 2011, the WHOIS Policy RT submitted its scope of work and roadmap<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+and+Roadmap+of+the+WH…>, outreach plan<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Outreach+plan>, action plan<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+plan> and list of key definitions for public comment http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04mar11-en.htm. It then solicited the Community's feedback on its Discussion Paper<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/whois-rt-discussion-paper-09jun…> [PDF, 182 KB] in June 2011 - http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09jun11-en.htm - and issued a Request for Proposals for a WHOIS Consumer Trust Research in July 2011. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

Councillors, Following on from Heather's email and the advice provided by the GAC, I have updated the agenda for our Sept 22 meeting (see item 11) to take this into account. Please make sure you pass the GAC advice along to your respective groups so that you are ready to discuss this item on Thursday. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > Objet : GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent > Date : 18 septembre 2011 00:05:39 HAEC > À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>, <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, <LIM_Choon_Sai(a)ida.gov.sg>, <alice(a)apc.org>, <maria.hall(a)enterprise.ministry.se>, <icann-board(a)icann.org> > > Dear Stéphane, > Please find the attached GAC advice: > > - GAC statement on a possible UDRP PDP > - GAC proposal re IOC and Red Cross protection at the second level > > I would be grateful if the attached material could be circulated to the GNSO Constituency Chairs, to be assured that all of the constituencies have the material before the September 22 GNSO call. > > The Board is also copied on this correspondence. > > All the best, > Heather > > Ms. Heather Dryden > GAC Chair > > >

2 1

gTLD WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Survey Now Live
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

gTLD WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Survey Now Live by Liz Gasster http://blog.icann.org/2011/09/gtld-whois-privacy-and-proxy-relay-and-reveal… As part of a broader examination of gTLD WHOIS, ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is seeking to gain further insight into the origination and handling of "relay" and "reveal" requests. A relay request is a request to forward a message to the registrant of a domain registered using a privacy service. A reveal request is a request to reveal the identity of the licensee of a domain registered using a proxy service. ICANN is seeking input from providers of privacy and proxy registration, from those who interact or communicate with privacy and proxy providers (in particular those who make relay and reveal requests), from registrars, and from other interested parties. The objective is that any potential future policy-making and any efforts to develop or support standardized procedures, tools, formats, etc., be based on data that accurately and broadly represent the experiences of those who use these aspects of the WHOIS system. By taking a brief survey, you can help lay the foundation for significant future studies. The survey is intended: * To gauge the feasibility of an in-depth study of relay and reveal requests, * To assess the willingness and ability of request originators, privacy/proxy providers, registrars and other interested parties to participate in and provide data to an in-depth study, * To identify factors that would promote or inhibit participation in an in-depth study, and * To offer individuals and organizations who may be willing to participate an opportunity to identify themselves. Participating in this survey is an opportunity for your voice to be heard and for your practical needs to be considered in the design and conduct of potential future studies. The survey is available in English, French, Russian, Simplified Chinese and Spanish. The survey, together with additional background information, can be found at https://www.whois-survey.net The survey will run until at least 15 October 2011, however we do encourage interested parties to respond as early as possible. For additional information, contact info(a)whois-survey.net<mailto:info@whois-survey.net>

1 0

Draft Agenda GNSO Council meeting Thursday, 22 September 2011 at 20:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 18, 2011

Sept. 18, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find attached and in text below, the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 22 September 2011 at 20:00 UTC. The agenda is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-22sep11-en.htm Wiki reference for the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+22+September… Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 20:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:20:00 UTC - see below for local times (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, Friday 23 September 05:00 Tokyo; 06:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest * Jonathon Robinson<http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/robinson-soi-current-en.htm> 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 21 July minutes <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-21jul11-en.htm> –approved on 8 August 2011. Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes) Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 10 (9 – Open Council Meeting DT added). • Other activities: 9 (9 - no change) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 – no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2– no change). Item 3: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group - recommendation # 3 (15 minutes) At its July 21 meeting, the Council considered a motion to address IRTP Part B recommendation #3. This motion was deferred following a request from one of the GNSO groups, and as the GNSO Council has a practice of honoring such requests, the motion is being considered at this meeting. Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 3.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C – Final Issue Report (10 minutes) As part of the IRTP, Staff has produced an issue report on part C of this work. The report recommends that a PDP be initiated on the issues addressed in the report. A motion is being made to proceed with the PDP on IRTP-C and create a WG to tackle this work. . Refer to motion: 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Normally, when a PDP is initiated, the Council convenes a DT to draft a charter for the work to be carried out. In this instance, in the interest of efficiency and because the issues laid out in the IRTP-C Final Issues Report are very precise, it is being suggested that the Council adopt the charter as-is and request that this work be started by a WG asap. A motion is being made to that effect, to be considered only if the first IRTP-C motion passes. Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 4.4 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 4.5 Discussion 4.6 Vote Item 5: Proxy voting - OSC (10 minutes) The proxy voting section of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures have been updated and put out for public comment. The OSC (Operations Steering Committee) has analyzed the comments received and a motion is being submitted for the GNSO Council to approve this updated text. Refer to motion 4 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 5.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes) At its July 21 meeting, the Council was presented with a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. This motion was discussed at the meeting and should now be considered by Council. It should be noted that the motion made before the Council today has been slightly reworked as compared to the motion shown at the July 21 meeting (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011) Refer to motion 5 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 6.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore asking for the community work on Applicant Support to be ready for its consideration at the October 2011 meeting in Dakar, Senegal. With this in mind, the JAS WG is presenting its final report for GNSO Council consideration. Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm Refer to motion 6 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 7.1 Reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Vote Item 8: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 In order to fulfill this work as requested by the Board, the WG is proposing 2 models: 1. A Joint Working Group including the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Government Advisory Committee (GAC) the GNSO and the ccNSO. 2. A GNSO Working Group open to others to participate. A motion is being considered to agree on a way forward. Refer to motion: 7 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 8.1 Reading of the motion (Rosemary Sinclair) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Vote Item 9: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity (10 minutes) A motion is being made to recommend action by the ICANN Board with regards to addressing Internet-based criminal activity. Refer to motion: 8 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 9.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz) 9.2 Discussion 9.3 Vote Item 10: Whois Survey Drafting Team (10 minutes) A motion is being submitted to approve the formation of a Whois Survey Drafting Team. Refer to motion: 9 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Septembe… 10.1 Reading of the motion (Wendy Seltzer) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Vote Item 11: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes) As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b): Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest. The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some guidance: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-dryden-11aug11-en.pdf On September 18, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council providing advice on this topic: <refer to GAC letter> The Council should now discuss next steps and possible courses of action, starting with an answer to the GAC. 11.1 Discussion 11.2 Next steps Item 12. Any Other Business (5 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 00:00 next day Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 06:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [council] Fwd: GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 18, 2011

Sept. 18, 2011

All, As I am helping to set up the agenda for Dakar, I have asked that these 2 items be included in the agenda in our meeting with the GAC. Please let me know if anyone has any issues with that. This is the first time I am aware of where the GAC has provided "GAC Advice" directly to the GNSO as opposed to the ICANN Board. Jeffrey J. Neuman Vice President, Law and Policy Neustar, Inc Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.biz P: 571-434-5772 M: 202-549-5079 -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 09:47 PM Eastern Standard Time To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Fwd: GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent With the attachments. Thanks Wendy for pointing out they were missing. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> Objet : GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent Date : 18 septembre 2011 00:05:39 HAEC À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc : <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>, <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, <LIM_Choon_Sai(a)ida.gov.sg>, <alice(a)apc.org>, <maria.hall(a)enterprise.ministry.se>, <icann-board(a)icann.org> Dear Stéphane, Please find the attached GAC advice: - GAC statement on a possible UDRP PDP - GAC proposal re IOC and Red Cross protection at the second level I would be grateful if the attached material could be circulated to the GNSO Constituency Chairs, to be assured that all of the constituencies have the material before the September 22 GNSO call. The Board is also copied on this correspondence. All the best, Heather Ms. Heather Dryden GAC Chair

2 1

Fwd: GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 18, 2011

Sept. 18, 2011

With the attachments. Thanks Wendy for pointing out they were missing. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > Objet : GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent > Date : 18 septembre 2011 00:05:39 HAEC > À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>, <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, <LIM_Choon_Sai(a)ida.gov.sg>, <alice(a)apc.org>, <maria.hall(a)enterprise.ministry.se>, <icann-board(a)icann.org> > > Dear Stéphane, > Please find the attached GAC advice: > > - GAC statement on a possible UDRP PDP > - GAC proposal re IOC and Red Cross protection at the second level > > I would be grateful if the attached material could be circulated to the GNSO Constituency Chairs, to be assured that all of the constituencies have the material before the September 22 GNSO call. > > The Board is also copied on this correspondence. > > All the best, > Heather > > Ms. Heather Dryden > GAC Chair > > >

1 0

Re: GAC advice: 1) possible UDRP 2) the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 17, 2011

Sept. 17, 2011

Thanks Heather, I am copying the GNSO Council on my response. As you know, GNSO Councillors act as representatives of their respective groups and are therefore responsible for ensuring that such correspondence as this is taken back to those groups. Best, Stéphane Le 18 sept. 2011 à 00:05, <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > Please find the attached GAC advice: > > - GAC statement on a possible UDRP PDP > - GAC proposal re IOC and Red Cross protection at the second level > > I would be grateful if the attached material could be circulated to the GNSO Constituency Chairs, to be assured that all of the constituencies have the material before the September 22 GNSO call. > > The Board is also copied on this correspondence. > > All the best, > Heather > > Ms. Heather Dryden > GAC Chair > > <Pièce jointe Mail.gif> > > <GAC advice on a possible UDRP PDP Sep. 2011.doc><GAC advice on IOC and Red Cross Sep. 2011.doc>

1 0

Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations
by Zahid Jamil Sept. 16, 2011

Sept. 16, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find below a motion on RAP I am proposing for the next GNSO Council call: Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report; Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf) ; Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena; Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102) Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco. Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11 -en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11- en.pdf). NOW THEREFORE BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Councils and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly. RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation. RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation. RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time. RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.

3 6

JAS WG WEBINAR in English, Spnish and French - Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

WEBINAR Conducted in English with Spanish and French interpretation Final Report Overview and Discussion - Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details and specify which language channel (English, Spanish or French) as well as the time you wish to join. In this webinar, members from the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) will provide ICANN stakeholder groups with an overview of the Final Report.. This report presents a proposal for ICANN to support new gTLD applicants coming from developing nations and is under consideration by ALAC and the GNSO. The report will also be available for public comment in the near future. Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: a) When should support be provided? b) Who should be approved to receive support? c) How should Support Candidates be evaluated? d) What support specifically should be offered? e) How should the overall support process work? f) How would the support process relate to the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) process? The webinar will take place on September 19th at 12.00 UTC and 22.00 UTC The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. The recording will be made available shortly after Sept 19 for the community members that are not able to attend any of the scheduled times. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English with interpretation in Spanish and French. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. At this time, the Final Report is available in English only. Translations into Spanish, French, Chinese, Arabic and Russian will be made available prior to the ICANN Dakar meeting (October 23-28). Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, September 19th at 12.00 UTC and 22.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) and which language channel (English, Spanish or French). 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.

1 0

Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Dear All, The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf for convenient referencing is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/drafts 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

RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Agreed. There are still differences of opinion but they do not kick in on this one, so hopefully this will go through smoothly. Alan At 15/09/2011 10:46 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >To be clear, the only reason the last RAA revisions were done that way >is because Registrars agreed to it. There should be no confusion between >Consensus Policy issues and amendments to the RAA that do not fall with >those issues. We maintain that the RAA cannot be otherwise amended >without Registrar approval. But I hope we don't let that argument derail >what we are trying to do here. > > >Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > Date: Thu, September 15, 2011 9:38 am > > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > Further to my last note, in a discussion with the PDP-WT, I was > > reminded that the RAA language allows the RAA picket fence issues to > > be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the GNSO and then Board ratification. > > That is in fact how the last RAA revision was done. But I thought > > that there had been a general belief that in the future, the PDP > > process would be used. > > > > So I guess I over-reacted to Tim's initial note. If all parties agree > > that the RAA fast path is still valid, there is not an issue. > > > > Alan > > > > At 14/09/2011 07:29 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > > >Hadn't looked at like that but you are probably correct about it > > >being within the picket fence. > > > > > >However, I thought that the only way that something could become a > > >Consensus Policy was by going through the formal PDP process. Cases > > >such as this are exactly why I have been pushing for a "fast-path" > > >PDP where all parties seem to be in agreement at the start, but to > > >date, there is no such process on the books. > > > > > >Maybe this is the case that makes us re-think that. > > > > > >Alan > > > > > >At 14/09/2011 06:20 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > >>Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and > > >>possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called > > >>picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as > > >>defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars > > >>if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well. > > >> > > >> > > >>Tim > > >> > > >> > -------- Original Message -------- > > >> > Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG > > >> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > >> > Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm > > >> > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>,GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >> > > > >> > Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have > > >> > questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented. > > >> > > > >> > The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP > > >> > is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules > > >> > into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in > > >> > on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, > > >> > ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to > > >> > sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still > > >> > some that have not). > > >> > > > >> > Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives > > >> > in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be > > >> > on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented > > >> > in a more timely manner? > > >> > > > >> > Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will > > >> > be obliged to pass on to their resellers? > > >> > > > >> > Alan > > >> > > > >> > At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > >> > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at > > >> > >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it > > >> > >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement > > >> > >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any > > >> > >opposition from other SGs or Cs. > > >> > > > > >> > >Tim

1 0

RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Thanks Tim. As I said in my note that crossed paths with yours, I had assumed that clause 4.3.1 was no longer going to be used, but it is still there and I am delighted to make use of it here. And in retrospect, there is no reason to change it is I suppose. A PDP is a valid way to enact Policy change, but for the RAA, it is not the only way. So sorry for raising alarms where they were not necessary. Alan At 15/09/2011 10:30 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >Please see section 4.3.1 of the RAA: >http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm > >That was constructed because at the time of the original RAA no PDP >existed. Now that one does, and to the extent that it meets these >minimum requirements, a PDP may result in Consensus Policy. At some >point this section of the RAA may need to be updated, but right now, >with the exception of the report described in part (c), we feel our >motion would suffice to create Consensus Policy if approved by a >supermajority of the Council and then upheld by a vote of the Board. For >the report, the information exists but we may need to request Staff to >assist in pulling it together. > >That doesn't answer your question completely, but our focus is on the >motion immediately at hand as it pertains to establishing Consensus >Policy. We realize that some may have concerns about process here, and >we are certainly sensitive to that and open to considering a full PDP if >deemed necessary. > >Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > Date: Wed, September 14, 2011 6:29 pm > > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > Hadn't looked at like that but you are probably correct about it > > being within the picket fence. > > > > However, I thought that the only way that something could become a > > Consensus Policy was by going through the formal PDP process. Cases > > such as this are exactly why I have been pushing for a "fast-path" > > PDP where all parties seem to be in agreement at the start, but to > > date, there is no such process on the books. > > > > Maybe this is the case that makes us re-think that. > > > > Alan > > > > At 14/09/2011 06:20 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > >Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and > > >possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called > > >picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as > > >defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars > > >if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well. > > > > > > > > >Tim > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG > > > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > > Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm > > > > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>,GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have > > > > questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented. > > > > > > > > The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP > > > > is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules > > > > into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in > > > > on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, > > > > ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to > > > > sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still > > > > some that have not). > > > > > > > > Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives > > > > in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be > > > > on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented > > > > in a more timely manner? > > > > > > > > Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will > > > > be obliged to pass on to their resellers? > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at > > > > >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it > > > > >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement > > > > >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any > > > > >opposition from other SGs or Cs. > > > > > > > > > >Tim

1 0

RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

To be clear, the only reason the last RAA revisions were done that way is because Registrars agreed to it. There should be no confusion between Consensus Policy issues and amendments to the RAA that do not fall with those issues. We maintain that the RAA cannot be otherwise amended without Registrar approval. But I hope we don't let that argument derail what we are trying to do here. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Thu, September 15, 2011 9:38 am > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Further to my last note, in a discussion with the PDP-WT, I was > reminded that the RAA language allows the RAA picket fence issues to > be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the GNSO and then Board ratification. > That is in fact how the last RAA revision was done. But I thought > that there had been a general belief that in the future, the PDP > process would be used. > > So I guess I over-reacted to Tim's initial note. If all parties agree > that the RAA fast path is still valid, there is not an issue. > > Alan > > At 14/09/2011 07:29 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > >Hadn't looked at like that but you are probably correct about it > >being within the picket fence. > > > >However, I thought that the only way that something could become a > >Consensus Policy was by going through the formal PDP process. Cases > >such as this are exactly why I have been pushing for a "fast-path" > >PDP where all parties seem to be in agreement at the start, but to > >date, there is no such process on the books. > > > >Maybe this is the case that makes us re-think that. > > > >Alan > > > >At 14/09/2011 06:20 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >>Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and > >>possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called > >>picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as > >>defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars > >>if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well. > >> > >> > >>Tim > >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- > >> > Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG > >> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >> > Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm > >> > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>,GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >> > > >> > Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have > >> > questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented. > >> > > >> > The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP > >> > is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules > >> > into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in > >> > on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, > >> > ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to > >> > sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still > >> > some that have not). > >> > > >> > Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives > >> > in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be > >> > on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented > >> > in a more timely manner? > >> > > >> > Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will > >> > be obliged to pass on to their resellers? > >> > > >> > Alan > >> > > >> > At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >> > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at > >> > >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it > >> > >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement > >> > >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any > >> > >opposition from other SGs or Cs. > >> > > > >> > >Tim

1 0

RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Hadn't looked at like that but you are probably correct about it being within the picket fence. However, I thought that the only way that something could become a Consensus Policy was by going through the formal PDP process. Cases such as this are exactly why I have been pushing for a "fast-path" PDP where all parties seem to be in agreement at the start, but to date, there is no such process on the books. Maybe this is the case that makes us re-think that. Alan At 14/09/2011 06:20 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and >possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called >picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as >defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars >if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well. > > >Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm > > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>,GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have > > questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented. > > > > The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP > > is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules > > into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in > > on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, > > ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to > > sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still > > some that have not). > > > > Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives > > in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be > > on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented > > in a more timely manner? > > > > Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will > > be obliged to pass on to their resellers? > > > > Alan > > > > At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at > > >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it > > >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement > > >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any > > >opposition from other SGs or Cs. > > > > > >Tim

1 1

RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Alan, Please see section 4.3.1 of the RAA: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm That was constructed because at the time of the original RAA no PDP existed. Now that one does, and to the extent that it meets these minimum requirements, a PDP may result in Consensus Policy. At some point this section of the RAA may need to be updated, but right now, with the exception of the report described in part (c), we feel our motion would suffice to create Consensus Policy if approved by a supermajority of the Council and then upheld by a vote of the Board. For the report, the information exists but we may need to request Staff to assist in pulling it together. That doesn't answer your question completely, but our focus is on the motion immediately at hand as it pertains to establishing Consensus Policy. We realize that some may have concerns about process here, and we are certainly sensitive to that and open to considering a full PDP if deemed necessary. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Wed, September 14, 2011 6:29 pm > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hadn't looked at like that but you are probably correct about it > being within the picket fence. > > However, I thought that the only way that something could become a > Consensus Policy was by going through the formal PDP process. Cases > such as this are exactly why I have been pushing for a "fast-path" > PDP where all parties seem to be in agreement at the start, but to > date, there is no such process on the books. > > Maybe this is the case that makes us re-think that. > > Alan > > At 14/09/2011 06:20 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and > >possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called > >picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as > >defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars > >if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well. > > > > > >Tim > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG > > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm > > > To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>,GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have > > > questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented. > > > > > > The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP > > > is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules > > > into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in > > > on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, > > > ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to > > > sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still > > > some that have not). > > > > > > Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives > > > in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be > > > on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented > > > in a more timely manner? > > > > > > Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will > > > be obliged to pass on to their resellers? > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at > > > >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it > > > >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement > > > >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any > > > >opposition from other SGs or Cs. > > > > > > > >Tim

1 0

AW: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Hi, Maybe it helps to use a lower case "joint" (jWG) until the frame for (J)WGs is fixed - or is this even more subtle? If not I'd like to propose it as a friendly amendment and second the motion. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jonathan Robinson Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2011 16:24 An: 'Rosemary Sinclair'; 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'GNSO Council List' Betreff: RE: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page Hi Rosemary, The draft charter refers to a (GNSO) WG yet the motion refers to a JWG. Am I missing an obvious subtlety here? Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair Sent: 13 September 2011 21:38 To: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List Subject: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page Hi all I'd welcome any comments on the Motion I have proposed... And a seconder for the Motion! Cheers Rosemary ________________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry [Glen(a)icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:17 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Motions on the Wiki page Dear Councillors, Please find the motions proposed by: - Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and seconded by Stéphane van Gelder on the revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting - Rosemary Sinclair to create a joint working group on consumer choice, competition and innovation - Zahid Jamil to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations On the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+September +2011 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6461 (20110913) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

2 1

RE: AW: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page
by Tim Ruiz Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

I am not convinced it is a good idea to do this as a JWG in this manner. I thought we were moving toward a GNSO WG, which of course are always open to all regardless of SO or AC affiliation. I think that is the quickest way to get Council agreement on this work AND to get it completed. JWGs are still controversial for many of us and we need to complete our work on that before initiating any further JWGs or CWGs. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: AW: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page > From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de > Date: Thu, September 15, 2011 5:02 am > To: <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>, <rosemary.sinclair(a)unsw.edu.au>, > <Glen(a)icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hi, > > Maybe it helps to use a lower case "joint" (jWG) until the frame for (J)WGs is fixed - or is this even more subtle? > If not I'd like to propose it as a friendly amendment and second the motion. > > > Kind regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jonathan Robinson > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2011 16:24 > An: 'Rosemary Sinclair'; 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'GNSO Council List' > Betreff: RE: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page > > > Hi Rosemary, > > The draft charter refers to a (GNSO) WG yet the motion refers to a JWG. > > Am I missing an obvious subtlety here? > > Thanks, > > > Jonathan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair > Sent: 13 September 2011 21:38 > To: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List > Subject: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page > > > Hi all > > I'd welcome any comments on the Motion I have proposed... > > And a seconder for the Motion! > > Cheers > > Rosemary > ________________________________________ > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Glen de Saint Géry [Glen(a)icann.org] > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:17 AM > To: GNSO Council List > Subject: [council] Motions on the Wiki page > > Dear Councillors, > > Please find the motions proposed by: > - Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and seconded by Stéphane van Gelder on the revision of > the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting > - Rosemary Sinclair to create a joint working group on consumer choice, > competition and innovation > - Zahid Jamil to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working > Group Recommendations > > On the Wiki page: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+September > +2011 > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6461 (20110913) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com

3 2

Safe and Secure New gTLDs: ICANN Seeks Back-up Registry Operators
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-14sep11-en.htm Safe and Secure New gTLDs: ICANN Seeks Back-up Registry Operators (Emergency Back-End Registry Operators or "EBEROs") 14 September 2011 ICANN is issuing today a Request for Information (RFI)<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/rfps/ebero-rfi-14sep11-en.pdf> [PDF, 660 KB] to identify potential Emergency Back-End Registry Operators (EBERO). One of ICANN's core missions is to preserve the operational security and stability of the Internet while also supporting open competition. With the upcoming launch of the New generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) program, the Internet will see a number of new gTLD registry operators. Although all applicants must meet technical, operational and financial requirements (see the gTLD Applicant Guidebook - http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/dag-en.htm) the community developed new gTLD program includes provision for a backup process. The EBERO is designed to be activated should a registry operator require assistance to sustain critical registry functions for a period of time or in the case of transition for one registry operator to another. Candidates are expected to meet the requirements outlined in the RFI, which requires, for example, at least three years of experience in operating Domain Name services (DNS) and one year of experience operating Registration Data Directory Services (RDDS) and Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) services. Besides the technical requirements, ICANN seeks candidates from geographically diverse regions in order to provide local service to registries in all regions and provide alternate sites in case of local disasters. ICANN is looking forward to receiving comprehensive information from the potential candidates. Negotiations with certain respondents to the RFI that provide comprehensive information will be initiated for the purpose of creating process details and entering into an agreement to provide backend services. The deadline for responses is November 30, 2011 at 23:59 UTC. Please direct your information to ebero(a)icann.org<mailto:ebero@icann.org>. Responses after the deadline will not be considered. RFI activities schedule at a glance: Request for proposals issued by ICANN 14 September 2011 Respondents' Q&A - Teleconference On or about 16 November 2011 Written proposals due 30 November 2011 - 23:59 UTC 1. What is a registry? A "Registry" is the authoritative, master database of all domain names registered in each Top-Level Domain. The registry operator keeps the master database and also generates the "zone file" which allows computers to route Internet traffic to and from top-level domains anywhere in the world. 2. What is an Emergency Operator? Emergency Operator or Back-End Registry Operator is an organization that has partnered with ICANN to provide registry services in case another registry is unable to operate. The emergency operators will be selected by ICANN based on the criteria outlined in the RFI. 3. What happens when a gTLD registry operation fail either financially or due a technical emergency? If an emergency occurs, and a Registry is unable to provide critical services, it will be the function of the Emergency Operator to ensure the continuity of the services. This provider emergency transition process is managed by ICANN and requires multiple providers to be available to take on the function in case one provider is not able to timely take the operation or if there is a conflict of interest. 4. What are the critical registry functions? Functions that are critical to the operation of a gTLD registry (i.e., those provided by the EBERO) are: * Domain Names System (DNS) resolution; * Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) properly signed zone (if DNSSEC is offered by the registry); * Shared Registration System (SRS), usually by means of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP); * Registration Data Directory Services (RDDS), e.g., WHOIS provided over both port 43 and through a web based service; * Registry Data Escrow. 5. What kind of information is ICANN requesting and who should respond? Respondents should be parties interested in committing themselves as potential Emergency Back-End Registry Operators. The RFI covers numerous areas, but respondents should be prepared to discuss the following: * Capabilities and experience in the critical registry functions; * Registry Transition concepts, experience, SLAs, and use cases; * Pricing models for providing critical registry functions; * Profile of the respondents organization, leadership and resources. Background In April 2009, ICANN published the ICANN gTLD Registry Continuity Plan - http://www.icann.org/en/registries/continuity/. This document depicts a gTLD Registry Continuity Framework developed in collaboration with experienced gTLD, ccTLD registries and members of the technical community. The overall goals of ICANN's gTLD Registry Continuity Framework are: 1. the protection of existing registrants; and 2. to ensure confidence in the DNS. The Registry Continuity framework recognized the need for a prescribed ability to continue services in the event of a Registry Operator failure. It introduced the concept of a Back-End Operator and the intrinsic complications in a single back-up operator supporting all existing capabilities of different registry models. In view of those complications, the concept of identifying base level "critical functions", required to maintain the minimum operating services of a Top Level Domain, was established and defined. In May 2010 ICANN published a New Top-Level Domain Explanatory Memorandum "gTLD Registry Transition Processes Model" (RyTP) - http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clea… [PDF, 747 KB]. This document further elaborates on the concept of critical functions required for maintaining Top-Level Domain services and discusses the types of transitions between one Registry Operator and another. The concept of the Emergency Back-End Registry Operator was also introduced to support the TLD critical functions of failing Registry Operators, when there is no immediate assigned successor Registry Operator. Links to Relevant Information: * New gTLD Program: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm * gTLD Registry Continuity Document Archive: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/continuity/archive-en.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ECO reception in Dakar
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Councillors, Thomas Rickert, one of our new NCAs, works with the german association ECO to promote outreach about ICANN and the Internet. ECO are organizing a reception for its members in Dakar (I understand they do so at every ICANN meeting) and Thomas has asked me to come and say a few words about the GNSO and the projects we are currently working on. I want to thank Thomas for this opportunity to do some more informative outreach about what our SOs does and how it works, therefore helping people in the community be more aware of what goes on within ICANN's policy-making body for gTLDs. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

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

Sept. 15, 2011

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

4 4

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

Sept. 14, 2011

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

1 0

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

Sept. 14, 2011

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

5 5

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

Sept. 14, 2011

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

3 2

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

Sept. 14, 2011

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

2 2