September 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

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

Sept. 22, 2011

Hi all, Just a note that indeed the Whois Survey Working Group Charter motion was deferred and was erroneously noted in the previous email as passed. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:34 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions - 22 September 2011 Dear All, Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 22 September at 20:00 UTC. The Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on 'Thick' WHOIS) WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions: a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf) see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations; WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to 'consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July'. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3) Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Whereas the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008; Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part C at its meeting on 22 June 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106) Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 25 July 2011 for public comment (see http://gnso.icann.org/transfers/preliminary-issue-report-irtp-c-25jul11-en.…) Whereas a Final Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 29 August 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO RESOLVED: The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group (WG) Whereas on 22 September 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter. RESOLVED, The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part C WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the Final Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) and make recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf. Revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures in terms of how the proxy giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder to simplify and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies; WHEREAS, at its meeting on 22 June the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directed Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post the document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum; WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf and posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011; WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11… indicating that no comments were received; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf to simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver's appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience. RESOLVED FURTHER the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revisions into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED FURTHER that as the OSC has completed all of its tasks the GNSO Council hereby disbands the OSC and its Work Teams and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC and its Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and, The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#<https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations>) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. And The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and The GNSO Council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG recommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remains on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair. Creation of a Working Group on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (CCI): Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011; Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Cartagena ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting; Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a working group with any party interested in participating in this effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a working group be formed to produce a report for consideration by SOs /ACs to assist them to respond to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system; Resolved further, that this newly formed working group is not authorized to forward to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN Board; Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and Resolved further, that the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) is hereby approved for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) a Working Group Update is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

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

Sept. 22, 2011

Dear All, Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 22 September at 20:00 UTC. The Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on 'Thick' WHOIS) WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions: a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf) see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations; WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to 'consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July'. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3) Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Whereas the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008; Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part C at its meeting on 22 June 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106) Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 25 July 2011 for public comment (see http://gnso.icann.org/transfers/preliminary-issue-report-irtp-c-25jul11-en.…) Whereas a Final Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 29 August 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO RESOLVED: The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group (WG) Whereas on 22 September 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter. RESOLVED, The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part C WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the Final Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) and make recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf. Revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures in terms of how the proxy giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder to simplify and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies; WHEREAS, at its meeting on 22 June the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directed Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post the document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum; WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf and posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011; WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11… indicating that no comments were received; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf to simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver's appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience. RESOLVED FURTHER the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revisions into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED FURTHER that as the OSC has completed all of its tasks the GNSO Council hereby disbands the OSC and its Work Teams and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC and its Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and, The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#<https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations>) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. And The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and The GNSO Council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG recommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remains on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair. Creation of a Working Group on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (CCI): Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011; Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Cartagena ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting; Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a working group with any party interested in participating in this effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a working group be formed to produce a report for consideration by SOs /ACs to assist them to respond to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system; Resolved further, that this newly formed working group is not authorized to forward to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN Board; Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and Resolved further, that the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) is hereby approved for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) a Working Group Update is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting 2011. Approval of the charter for the Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… ), and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ), and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 ); Whereas on 07 May 2009<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200905>, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-initial-repor…>, soliciting input from SOs and ACs; Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-draft-final-r…> which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting; Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-…>; Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise<http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19may11-en.htm> seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements; Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter<https://community.icann.org/display/WSDT/Home> for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf Resolved, The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010. The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

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

Sept. 22, 2011

Olivier, In my capacity as GNSO Council Chair, it is my pleasure to inform you, in your capacity as ALAC Chair, that the Council voted to approve the motion shown below during its meeting today. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and, The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. and The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and The GNSO council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review and approval, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG of therecommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.

1 0

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

Sept. 22, 2011

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

1 0

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

Sept. 22, 2011

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

5 9

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

Sept. 22, 2011

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

1 0

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

Sept. 22, 2011

Thank you Carlos. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Amendment to the RrSG motion (motion 8 on the motions page) From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> Date: Thu, September 22, 2011 1:23 pm To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Tim: I accept the amendment as friendly. Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org > From: tim(a)godaddy.com > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Amendment to the RrSG motion (motion 8 on the motions page) > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:01:54 -0700 > > > After further discussion within our SG we have been asked to amend our > motion (motion 8 on the motions page) as follows: > > 1. REPLACE "NOW THEREFORE, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN > Board of Directors that:" WITH "RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an > Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or > additions:" > > 2. Strike the section labeled 5. altogether. > > I accept those changes as friendly and hopefully Carlos will as well. > This will direct things officially down the PDP path. We can discuss > further on today's call. > > Tim > > The motion would then read in its entirety as follows: > > ---------- > > WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with > representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the > nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools > available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; > and > > WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement > proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing > online crime; and > > WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its > long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity; > > RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following > possible policy revisions and/or additions: > > 1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN > staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of > receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street > address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. > Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, > and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within > 30 days of a change of address. > > 2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN > staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s respective > corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate > equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon > request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a > manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and > representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify > ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change. > > 3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web > sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions > may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention > (example: lawenforcement(a)example.tld) to facilitate ease of use by law > enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, > include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the > general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these > points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for > other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement > agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an > acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours. > > 4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of > approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of > the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and > identification system that allows for expedient identification to a > registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the > contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency’s first > contact with a registrar. > > >

2 1

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

Sept. 22, 2011

After further discussion within our SG we have been asked to amend our motion (motion 8 on the motions page) as follows: 1. REPLACE "NOW THEREFORE, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:" WITH "RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions:" 2. Strike the section labeled 5. altogether. I accept those changes as friendly and hopefully Carlos will as well. This will direct things officially down the PDP path. We can discuss further on today's call. Tim The motion would then read in its entirety as follows: ---------- WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity; RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions: 1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address. 2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change. 3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention (example: lawenforcement(a)example.tld) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours. 4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency’s first contact with a registrar.

2 1

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

Sept. 22, 2011

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

1 0

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

Sept. 22, 2011

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

3 2