January 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Framework for the FY 13 Budget - call for Public Comments
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17jan12-en.htm Framework for the FY 13 Budget Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 17 January 2012 Categories/Tags: Operations-Finances Purpose (Brief): The release of the Framework for the FY 13 Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/planning/ops-budget-framework-fy2013-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.92 MB] kicks off the operational planning process for ICANN, providing the community with their first look at the current and planned work, along with estimated financial resources required for FY13. The feedback and involvement of the ICANN community in the evolution from Framework to Operating Plan is critical in making this a workable and implementable budget, and we now encourage the community to comment on this set of identified priorities and how they should fit into the FY13 plan. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/op-budget-fy2013-17jan12-en.htm 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 teleconference MP3 Thursday, 19 January, 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 19 January, 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120119-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec Happy listening! 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 resolution 19 January 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, the following resolution was passed at the Council meeting on 19 January 2012. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2 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);<http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf%29;> see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm%29;> 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 in relation to recommendation #9 part b, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for a new provision on locking / unlocking of a domain name, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation; WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.ht…;> WHEREAS comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the GNSO Council, and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2 and the related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html). 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 agenda Item 3 Slides - GNSO-WHOIS
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the presentation that will be given by the Whois Review team in Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes) Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) letter http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be called to work on in the near future. The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting and provide an update. Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor) Discussion 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

Council meeting
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

All, for a discussion under AOB of the council agenda today I'd like to provide you with the draft agenda of the GNSO sessions in Costa Rica (see attached). <<gnso-costarica-schedule-draft-10Jan12-en_v.4.xls>> In this context council I'd appreciate your input which items are of interest to be discussed in the joint meetings with Board, GAC and ccNSO. Looking forward to hearing you later this day Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#76]
by Glen de Saint Géry 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mercredi 18 janvier 2012 17:51 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#76] Name of Officer: * David Maher Officer Email Address: * dmaher(a)pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, January 18, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Registries Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Jonathan Robinson will be traveling on 19 January. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All motions 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, January 20, 2012 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: * Ching Chiao

1 0

Re: [council] Jonathan Robinson - Attendance on GNSO Call & Council Proxy
by Stéphane Van Gelder 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Bill, Jonathan, Thanks to you both for the heads-up. The motion will stay on the agenda but we now know we can expect a request for it to be deferred once we get to that agenda item in tomorrow's meeting. Stéphane Le 18 janv. 2012 à 14:20, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > Hi Bil, > > Deferral ok. Is San Jose the next meeting? > > Best, > > Jonathan > > Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse brevity or typographical errors. > > >> On 18 Jan 2012 13:15, "William Drake" <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> wrote: >> >> Hi Jonathan >> >> We've been discussing the CCWG issue in NCSG and were thinking we might want to defer consider of the motion anyway, so if you're not going to be on tomorrow perhaps it'd be best to work it through F2F in San Jose when you're able to present. Ok? >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Jan 18, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >> >> > Dear Stéphane, >> > >> > I am obliged to tra... >> >

1 0

Re: [council] Jonathan Robinson - Attendance on GNSO Call & Council Proxy
by William Drake 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi Jonathan We've been discussing the CCWG issue in NCSG and were thinking we might want to defer consider of the motion anyway, so if you're not going to be on tomorrow perhaps it'd be best to work it through F2F in San Jose when you're able to present. Ok? Best, Bill On Jan 18, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > Dear Stéphane, > > I am obliged to travel over these next couple of days and am therefore unable to attend the GNSO Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow. > > Please accept my apologies with respect to the meeting. I anticipate that either Jeff or Ching will be nominated to act as my proxy in tomorrow’s Council meeting. > > I am aware that I have a motion on the agenda so will need someone to read that motion. > Obviously, I will be unable to speak to it but there are others from the WG on the council who may wish to do so. > > Best wishes, > > > > Jonathan > > > >

1 0

Jonathan Robinson - Attendance on GNSO Call & Council Proxy
by Jonathan Robinson 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Dear Stéphane, I am obliged to travel over these next couple of days and am therefore unable to attend the GNSO Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow. Please accept my apologies with respect to the meeting. I anticipate that either Jeff or Ching will be nominated to act as my proxy in tomorrows Council meeting. I am aware that I have a motion on the agenda so will need someone to read that motion. Obviously, I will be unable to speak to it but there are others from the WG on the council who may wish to do so. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0

FW: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2
by Marika Konings 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Dear All, Please find attached the comments from the IPC on the staff proposals in relation to IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2. As these comments were received after the closing of the public comment forum and the submission of the proposals to the Council, these are provided to you directly for your consideration. ICANN Staff is planning to provide its feedback on the IPC comments separately so that you have the opportunity to review our opinion on these comments also as part of your deliberations. With best regards, Marika From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:02:12 -0800 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "Murray, Emily" <emurray(a)steptoe.com<mailto:emurray@steptoe.com>>, "Barry, Korey" <Kbarry(a)steptoe.com<mailto:Kbarry@steptoe.com>> Subject: RE: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear Marika, Thank you very much for your response. Please find attached the IPC’s comments on the above-mentioned issues, which have now been approved by the IPC. We would greatly appreciate it if the comments could be considered and if the proposals could be revised, if warranted. We sincerely appreciate your flexibility and consideration during the busy year-end and holiday period. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: January 4, 2012 3:43:52 AM EST To: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Subject: Re: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear Brian, As the proposals have already been submitted to the GNSO Council and the public comment forum has been closed, it might make more sense to raise the IPC's comments as part of the Council's deliberations on the proposals, unless the Council prefers that Staff considers the IPC comments first and revises the proposals, if necessary, based on the comments. Best regards, Marika From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:56:37 -0800 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear Marika, I hope you enjoyed the holiday break! Unfortunately due to everyone's hectic schedule surrounding the holidays, we were a bit delayed in composing comments on both of these recommendations on behalf of the IPC. Accordingly, we are planning to submit comments on behalf of the IPC later this week on these issues. Please let us know if that is okay, or if we are too late to do so. Thank you and looking forward to working together in 2012! Best, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:45 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear All, First of all, best wishes for 2012! As you may recall, the GNSO Council resolved in June of last year in relation to two of the IRTP Part B recommendations (recommendation #8 concerning the standardization and clarification of Whois status messages regarding Registrar Lock status and recommendation #9 part 2 concerning a new provision to lock and unlock domain names) to request ICANN staff to provide proposals. In consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group, ICANN Staff prepared these proposals which were subsequently put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov11-en.htm). As no comments were received as part of the public comment forum, these proposals are now submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration (see attached). If you have any questions, please let me know. With best regards, Marika

2 2