January 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

WSWG Response to GNSO Council Regarding the RAPWG's WHOIS Access Recommendation
by Liz Gasster Jan. 10, 2012

Jan. 10, 2012

Dear all, You may recall that in October 2011, the GNSO Council asked the WHOIS Service Requirements Survey Working Group (WS WG) to consider including the issue of "WHOIS Accessibility" as part of the WHOIS survey it has been tasked to develop. This item was associated with one of several remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations that the Council took action on at that time. The WS WG indeed considered this recommendation, however, as explained in the attached response, the Working Group ultimately concluded that the issue does not fall within the remit of its current charter and recommends that the item not be included in their upcoming survey. The WS WG, through its Chair, Michael Young, and its Council liaison, Wendy Seltzer, are happy to answer any questions the Council may have. The WS WG is proceeding apace with development of the requested survey. Best regards, Liz Gasster

1 0

Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 10, 2012

Jan. 10, 2012

Thanks Jonathan. Please convey my thanks to the group for the energy and time it has devoted to this work. I would like to ask how the group envisions the Council using its output? You write that it is the group's expectations that this output will now be considered prior to the GNSO participating in any further CWGs. Do you think these should be added to the GNSO's R&Ps, or should they just be used as a standalone reference document whenever the question of participation in a CWG arises? In the document itself: On 2aii, we've seen several cases recently where the sponsoring bodies (be they SOs or ACs) don't exactly see eye to eye on the charter. This says that there should be consensus. What if there isn't? Is the idea to say that in such cases, the GNSO would not participate until such a time as there is? On bii, when should SOs and ACs do this? I don't understand what is being said here? Do you expect SOs and ACs to solicit the advice of other bodies during the execution of the CWG's work? If so, I find this strange as it seems to go against the accepted norm nowadays which is to let the group assigned to do the work do that work until it has finished, and then the chartering organizations look at it. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 4 janv. 2012 à 14:24, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > > I have pleasure in attaching the work of the GNSO CCWG DT for consideration and discussion by the council at its next meeting. > > We concluded our work at the end of last year as planned. We made good progress after Dakar and were spurred on by a few new additions to the group and excellent support from ICANN staff. > > It is our understanding that the council will now consider this output prior to participating in any further ICANN community initiatives on the same topic. > > Happy new year and I look forward to discussing this with you and fellow councillors in the near future. > > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan Robinson > (in my capacity as chair of the GNSO CCWG Drafting Team) > > > <Draft Principles for CWGs for GNSO Council Review 23 Dec 2011.pdf>

2 1

Materials from ICANN Board information call on 5 January 2012
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 7, 2012

Jan. 7, 2012

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/summary-informational-call-05jan11-en.ht m Summary of Board Informational Call 5 January 2012 The Board held an informational call with staff regarding the planning for the opening of the New gTLD Program application window on 12 January 2012. No Board action was undertaken at the meeting. Non-confidential informational papers regarding the topics discussed will be made publicly available. The Staff and the Board discussed (1) operational readiness for the New gTLD Program, including the posting of a new version of the Applicant Guidebook reflecting the interim amendments approved by the Board; (2) the status of plans for timely execution of the GAC requests regarding the Early Warning, application batching process, trademark clearinghouse procedures, planning for a second round, and applicant support; (3) providing responses to recent correspondence regarding the New gTLD Program; and (4) next steps in providing the Board further information on remaining implementation work. Papers: Operational Readiness: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-1-05jan12-en.pd f GAC Early Warning: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-2-05jan12-en.pd f New gTLDs: Applicant Support http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-3-05jan12-en.pd f New gTLDs: Trademark Clearinghouse Implementation http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-4-05jan12-en.pd f New gTLDs: IDN Variant Management http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-5-05jan12-en.pd f New gTLDs: Timing of the Next Round http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-6-05jan12-en.pd f Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Document and motion Deadline 11 January for GNSO Council meeting on 19 January at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 6, 2012

Jan. 6, 2012

Dear Councillors, Best wishes for the New Year! Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e. WEDNESDAY, 11 January 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 January, 2012 at 11:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 6, 2012

Jan. 6, 2012

Dear All, The GNSO Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) - Final Draft Principles http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf has been posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ 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 De : owner-gnso-ccwg-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@icann.org] De la part de Jonathan Robinson Envoyé : mercredi 4 janvier 2012 14:24 À : 'Stéphane Van Gelder' Cc : gnso-ccwg-dt(a)icann.org Objet : [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council Dear Stéphane, I have pleasure in attaching the work of the GNSO CCWG DT for consideration and discussion by the council at its next meeting. We concluded our work at the end of last year as planned. We made good progress after Dakar and were spurred on by a few new additions to the group and excellent support from ICANN staff. It is our understanding that the council will now consider this output prior to participating in any further ICANN community initiatives on the same topic. Happy new year and I look forward to discussing this with you and fellow councillors in the near future. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson (in my capacity as chair of the GNSO CCWG Drafting Team)

1 0

TR: IDN Variant Issues Project: Draft Integrated Issues Report
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 5, 2012

Jan. 5, 2012

Forwarded from : Steve Sheng Dear GNSO community, ICANN recently published The Draft Integrated Issues Report on IDN Variant Issues Project. The public comment period was opened on 23 December 2011 and will run until 30 January 2012. We invite GNSO constituencies interested in this matter to comment on this report. The announcement and public comment forum can be accessed at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23dec11-en.htm Kind regards, -- Steve Sheng Senior Technical Analyst Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers steve.sheng(a)icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Draft JIG Letter
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 5, 2012

Jan. 5, 2012

Councillors, Just to keep you updated on this, no letter has been sent by the GNSO. We resolved to send the letter "upon the mutual resolution from both the GNSO and ccNSO councils on the subject". As there has not been mutual resolution, the ccNSO not having resolved to send it, I have not sent the letter on behalf of the GNSO. I will continue to await the ccNSO's comments on the letter before doing so. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk> > Objet : Draft JIG Letter > Date : 20 décembre 2011 17:21:22 HNEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> > > Hi Stephane, > > The ccNSO Council discussed the draft letter to the ICANN Board at length on our call earlier today. > > Whilst the Council remains keen to support single character IDN TLDs, we did not fully support the way forward contained in the letter and therefore resolved to draft a separate ccNSO letter to the Board on this matter. We hope to do so fairly swiftly and I will let you have a copy of the letter as soon as possible. > > I think that this situation will be pretty rare and infrequent, but in due course it would be good to discuss how we best deal with such situations from any joint working groups in future. > > Kind regards, > > Lesley > > Lesley Cowley, OBE > CEO > Nominet > Minerva House > Edmund Halley Road > Oxford Science Park > Oxford, OX4 4DQ > UK > > Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 > http://www.nominet.org.uk/

1 0

Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2
by Marika Konings Jan. 5, 2012

Jan. 5, 2012

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 1

NTIA letter to ICANN about new gTLDs
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 4, 2012

Jan. 4, 2012

Councillors, FYI, a letter that you should all be aware of, particularly with respect to the Council's ongoing work on the RAA and WHOIS. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program… Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

Minutes GNSO Council meeting 15 December 2011 posted on website
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 3, 2012

Jan. 3, 2012

Dear Councillors, The minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 15 December 2011 are posted: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15dec11-en.htm http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index-2011.htm#dec "If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting." on 3 January 2012. " 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