September 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

NORC at the University of Chicago Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification Study
by Glen de Saint Géry 29 Sep '11

29 Sep '11

http://blog.icann.org/2011/09/norc-at-the-university-of-chicago-selected-to… NORC at the University of Chicago Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification Study by LIZ GASSTER on SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 I am delighted to report that ICANN has engaged NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification study, seeking a foundational understanding of the types of entities and kinds of potentially commercial activities observed among gTLD domain names. NORC intends to use Whois Registrant contact data to classify the kinds of entities that register a representative sample of gTLD domain names, including natural persons, legal persons and Privacy or Proxy service providers. NORC will then analyze Internet content associated with each sampled domain to classify the entities that appear to be using those domains, along with any observable potentially commercial activities. Draft study results are expected to be published in mid-2012. Entity and activity classifications are not predefined but will be developed during the study, based on sampled data, to help the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and ICANN community better understand the variety of possible correlations that may emerge. ICANN looks forward to working with NORC to publish statistics that describe how various gTLD Registrants identify themselves, in order to inform future gTLD Whois policy discussions. To learn more about the Whois Registrant Identification Study or other studies now being conducted at the request of the GNSO Council, please visit http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated Final PDP-WT Report for Council Consideration and Motion
by Neuman, Jeff 29 Sep '11

29 Sep '11

All, Please find attached the final PDP-WT documents (clean version, redline and comparison overview). They can also be found on the wiki (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/2.+PDP-WT+Documents+%28Drafts+…) in addition to the public comment review tool and the attendance sheet. Also, please find below a proposed motion to approve the recommendations to the PDP-WT Updated Final Report. I am presenting to this motion to the Council now with the expectation that someone (which may be me on behalf of the registries) will ask that it be deferred until Dakar. That said, this process has gone on long enough that I believe we should finish everything up by no later than Dakar to move on to other projects. Thanks! Motion Motion to Adopt the Policy Development Process Work Team Updated Final Report WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf) on 1 June 2011 to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS the GNSO Council opened a 30-day public comment period on the Final Report (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jun11-en.htm); WHEREAS the GNSO Council referred those comments back to the PDP-WT for consideration (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107); WHEREAS the PDP-WT has reviewed those comments and updated the report as deemed appropriate (see [include link to public comment review tool]; WHEREAS the PDP-WT submitted its Updated Final Report (see [include link] to the GNSO Council on 27 September 2011. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the revised GNSO Policy Development Process as reflected in the proposed Annex A and PDP Manual as outlined in the PDP Updated Final Report (see [include link]). RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the procedures of the new Annex A shall be applicable to all requests for Issue Reports and PDPs initiated following adoption by the ICANN Board. For all ongoing PDPs initiated prior to the adoption by the Board, the Council shall determine the feasibility of transitioning to the procedures set forth in this Annex A for all remaining steps within the PDP. If the Council determines that any ongoing PDP cannot be feasibly transitioned to these updated procedures, the PDP shall be concluded according to the procedures set forth in Annex A in force on before the adoption of the new Annex A by the Board. 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 1

Re: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" fornon-binding best practices
by Alan Greenberg 29 Sep '11

29 Sep '11

As did I. Alan At 28/09/2011 08:35 PM, tim(a)godaddy.com wrote: >I received it from John via the list. > >Tim > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:23:01 >To: 'Adrian >Kinderis'<adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au>; >'john(a)crediblecontext.com'<john(a)crediblecontext.com>; >'Marika Konings'<marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Cc: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org'<council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for > non-binding best practices > > >We will be sending out the proposed Dakar agenda >shortly for comment, but we were planning on including this topic. > >On a separate note, for some reason I did not >get john's e-mail until Adrian replied. Is this >just an issue with my e-mail or did others have the same problem? > >Thanks, > > > >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: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] >Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:53 PM Eastern Standard Time >To: john(a)crediblecontext.com; Marika Konings >Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the >potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices > >Can we add this to the agenda in Dakar please? > > > >The Registrars will have lots to say here J > > > >I appreciate the perspective and applaud JB for his approach. > > > >Adrian Kinderis > > > > > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john(a)crediblecontext.com >Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011 1:18 AM >To: Marika Konings >Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [council] A thought on the potential of >a "seal program" for non-binding best practices > > > >Marika & fellow Coucillors: > > > >While I am totally supportive of working to >reach agreement on a shared definition of "best >practices" -- their identification, >implementation and measurement -- there is >something in the notion of a "seal of approval" that most piques my interest. > > > >As a founding member of the Board of TRUSTe >(www.truste.com), the online privacy rights >organization that manages a seal program for >data collection and use, I am familiar with the >consumer value of such industry self-regulatory programs can deliver. > > > >In the case of non-binding policies it may be >that such an approach -- a seal granted and >monitored by ICANN or a third-party -- can make >the implementation of these policies a matter of >competitive advantage for registrars and registries. > > > >As the non-binding best practices are >identified, they can be used as a way to review >business practices and earn (or not) a seal of >approval for the applying party. The seal can >them become a part of that company's competitive >marketing. Consumers can then choose to work >with a company based on their commitment to >those policies, knowing that a third-party is monitoring performance. > > > >This could be a way to supplement the consensus >policy process, using market forces help lead to consumer advantage. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Berard > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Discussion Paper on the Creation of Best Practices > to Address the Abusive Registrations of Domain Names > From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> > Date: Wed, September 28, 2011 3:20 am > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Dear All, > > > > As requested by the GNSO Council, > please find attached the discussion paper on > 'the creation of non-binding best practices to > help registrars andregistries address the > abusive registrations of domain names' prepared > by ICANN Staff. We would like to suggest that > the GNSO Council consider opening a public > comment forum on this document to allow for > community input on the issues outlined in the > paper as well as the proposed next steps. > Should the Council agree with this suggestion, > a time has been tentatively reserved at the > ICANN meeting in Senegal to organize a workshop > on the paper and solicit community input > (scheduled for Wednesday 26 October from 9.00 > 10.30 local time). We look forward to receiving your feedback. > > > With best regards, > > > > Marika

1 0

RE: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices
by Neuman, Jeff 29 Sep '11

29 Sep '11

We will be sending out the proposed Dakar agenda shortly for comment, but we were planning on including this topic. On a separate note, for some reason I did not get john's e-mail until Adrian replied. Is this just an issue with my e-mail or did others have the same problem? Thanks, 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: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:53 PM Eastern Standard Time To: john(a)crediblecontext.com; Marika Konings Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices Can we add this to the agenda in Dakar please? The Registrars will have lots to say here J I appreciate the perspective and applaud JB for his approach. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john(a)crediblecontext.com Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011 1:18 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices Marika & fellow Coucillors: While I am totally supportive of working to reach agreement on a shared definition of "best practices" -- their identification, implementation and measurement -- there is something in the notion of a "seal of approval" that most piques my interest. As a founding member of the Board of TRUSTe (www.truste.com), the online privacy rights organization that manages a seal program for data collection and use, I am familiar with the consumer value of such industry self-regulatory programs can deliver. In the case of non-binding policies it may be that such an approach -- a seal granted and monitored by ICANN or a third-party -- can make the implementation of these policies a matter of competitive advantage for registrars and registries. As the non-binding best practices are identified, they can be used as a way to review business practices and earn (or not) a seal of approval for the applying party. The seal can them become a part of that company's competitive marketing. Consumers can then choose to work with a company based on their commitment to those policies, knowing that a third-party is monitoring performance. This could be a way to supplement the consensus policy process, using market forces help lead to consumer advantage. Cheers, Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Discussion Paper on the Creation of Best Practices to Address the Abusive Registrations of Domain Names From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, September 28, 2011 3:20 am To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear All, As requested by the GNSO Council, please find attached the discussion paper on 'the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars andregistries address the abusive registrations of domain names' prepared by ICANN Staff. We would like to suggest that the GNSO Council consider opening a public comment forum on this document to allow for community input on the issues outlined in the paper as well as the proposed next steps. Should the Council agree with this suggestion, a time has been tentatively reserved at the ICANN meeting in Senegal to organize a workshop on the paper and solicit community input (scheduled for Wednesday 26 October from 9.00 – 10.30 local time). We look forward to receiving your feedback. With best regards, Marika

2 1

A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices
by john＠crediblecontext.com 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

2 1

Motion to Approve Amended Version of Process B in Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to RAA with regard to High and Medium Priority Topics described in the Final Report
by Rosette, Kristina 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

All, I hereby submit for action at our October 6 meeting a motion to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement ("Final Report") to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. For convenience, I attach the motion in document form and provide a redline against a previous version of this motion that did not pass in our April 7 meeting. -*- Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; Whereas, a previous GNSO Council motion to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass at the GNSO Council's April 7, 2011 meeting; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve a further amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. The GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Office of the General Counsel review the prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report and identify any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. The GNSO Council requests that the Office of the General Counsel complete and publish on the ICANN website the outcome of such review and identification not later than seventy-five (75) days after the date of this resolution. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 3. Within sixty (60) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, bimonthly written reports on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. Each bimonthly report shall identify the status of (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee; and shall identify such topics, if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"). 5. The Negotiating Group shall review public comments received and continue negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than March 4, 2013. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. -*- Sincerely yours, Kristina Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com www.cov.com/krosette This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

4 6

Nomination acceptance/rejection
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

Dear Stéphane, You have been duly nominated by Jonathan Robinson, a Registries Stakeholder Group representative, from the contracted parties house to the position of GNSO council chair for the term beginning at the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12081.html Ching Chiao, from the Registries Stakeholder Group, has seconded your nomination. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12082.html Do you accept the nomination and if so, would you please be so kind as to submit a candidacy statement in writing to the gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org and the Council mailing list, not later than 22:00 UTC on 14 October 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Council meeting minutes 22 September 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 22 September 2011. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved on 7 October 2011. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] GNSO Council Chair Nomination - Stéphane van Gelder
by Ching Chiao 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

I'd like to second the nomination of Stéphane van Gelder made by Jonathan. Thank you very much. Best regards, Ching Chiao On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Jonathan Robinson < jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> wrote: > Dear Glen,**** > > ** ** > > I would like to nominate Stéphane van Gelder from the contracted parties > house to the position of GNSO council chair for the term beginning at the > end of the 2011.**** > > ** ** > > I trust that this is sufficient and complete for you to accept the > nomination.**** > > ** ** > > Please let me know if you need any other procedural steps completed.**** > > ** ** > > Best wishes,**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Jonathan**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- Ching CHIAO Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG ===================================== Email: chiao(a)registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia www.facebook.com/ching.chiao

1 0

GNSO Council Chair Nomination - Stéphane van Gelder
by Jonathan Robinson 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

Dear Glen, I would like to nominate Stéphane van Gelder from the contracted parties house to the position of GNSO council chair for the term beginning at the end of the 2011. I trust that this is sufficient and complete for you to accept the nomination. Please let me know if you need any other procedural steps completed. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0