October 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP
by Brian Peck Oct. 27, 2012

Oct. 27, 2012

GNSO Council, As you recall from the 17 October 2012 Toronto meeting, the Council adopted the motion to initiate a PDP to be completed in an expedited manner on the Protections of Certain International Organization Names in all gTLDs (see 20121017-2 http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017) The GNSO Council decided at this meeting that a group of volunteers should be convened quickly to draft the charter for the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group, which will likely include the members from the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team. The first meeting of the IGO-INGO Protection Charter Drafting Team is scheduled to occur on 31 October 2012 at 18:00 UTC. Calendar notices and request for volunteers will be sent out shortly. To expedite initiation of the PDP, Staff developed the attached first drafts of the IGO-INGO Protection WG Charter and proposed work plan. The draft Charter proposes that the future WG create two sub-groups (A & B) to address the different scope and timelines for addressing the issues of special protections for the IOC/RCRC names and IGO/INGO names separately. We’d like to request your particular attention be given to the Mission & Scope, Objectives & Goals, and Deliverables & Timeframes sections of the Charter. The draft proposed work plan is also provided to understand key milestones of the PDP efforts and external events planned through the first quarter of 2013. Please note that this is a working draft. Staff is checking internally on the expert opinion issue, and we’d like to propose updating this work plan once we receive confirmation that we can obtain the expert opinion. Because the IOC/RCRC DT members will likely participate in the IGO-INGO PDP, Staff suggests that the current IOC/RCRC DT be suspended. It is expected that the remaining IOC/RCRC DT efforts, after the close of the public comment period, will be addressed by sub-group A of the PDP WG mentioned above. We look forward to meeting with members of the Drafting Team next week. In the meantime, Staff would like to hear the Council’s view about this go-forward plan and will incorporate any feedback that the Council has. Supporting Staff: Brian Peck, Margie Milam, Berry Cobb Thank you. ICANN Policy Team

2 2

RE: URS follow-up
by Jonathan Robinson Oct. 26, 2012

Oct. 26, 2012

All, I recently forwarded you Olof Nordling's mail below. This follows on from the session where Olof presented to the Council as part of our wrap-up session. As you may recall, I was caught slightly unaware by the requirement to chair the wrap-up session. The discussion on the potential for formation of a drafting team or at least being in a good position to do so has continued on the GNSO Council list to the extent that we now have good indications of interest in the decision and in contributing to the prospective DT. Great. However, I wanted to take this opportunity draw to your attention the fact that the provision of URS services is an area where I have some systems, process and related expertise. Accordingly, I have recently had informal discussions with companies and individuals who may respond to the ICANN RFI on the URS. Since no formal arrangements have been made and indeed, nothing may materialise, I do not believe that there is a current basis to update my SOI. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I have reservations about chairing Council discussions on the subject. In order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, I propose to ask VC Mason Cole to lead any GNSO Council discussions on this topic, at least until it is clear that I am not involved with or have no future involvement in a response to ICANN's RFI. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com Cc: Kurt Pritz Subject: URS follow-up Dear Jonathan, Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all Council members for the constructive discussions we had on URS matters on 18 October! The willingness to consider a drafting team to address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. The subsequent URS session the same day in Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential URS providers, we had the advantage of a very late addition to the agenda - a presentation from a "new entrant", Intersponsive, intending to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the target fee, although with some adjustments of the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they would be able to stay within the target fee, provided reasonable limitations could be established to the current translation requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint. I realize that you and other Council members couldn't attend this session, as it partially overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but the recording is available at <http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. Furthermore, there are a number of relevant documents posted on our recently established URS web page at <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, with considerations, proposals, some costing aspects and, most importantly, questions needing to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard). I believe these recent developments further clarifies the need for a drafting team to establish realistic implementation measures based on the URS text. I look forward to further contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. Very best regards Olof

3 3

GNSO Council - Looking ahead from ICANN 45
by Jonathan Robinson Oct. 26, 2012

Oct. 26, 2012

Dear GNSO Councillors, It's a week since ICANN 45 in Toronto and I would like to take the opportunity to personally update you with a little progress and the development of my thinking in the interim. Together with the Vice Chairs, we took advantage of being in Toronto to meet with the GNSO Policy staff and secretariat. The objective was to discuss and understand key practical interactions and ways of working together to ensure smooth operational functioning of the Council. We met for a little over an hour, had a productive, open discussion and I believe we are all off to a good start. As we commence working together as a "new" council and begin the terms of our incoming Councillors, I am very keen to extend a very warm welcome to all those who joined us in Toronto. More than that, I'd like to make sure we give the incoming Councillors a proper introduction to and induction onto the Council. With this in mind, I'll be writing to them in order to set up at least one meeting. If, from your own experience of joining or working on the Council, you think that there are specific imprtant areas we should cover in an induction, please don't hesitate to let me know. During the course of the election process, we touched on key areas that needed on going, renewed or new attention and I'd like to mention these. I think of them as strategic priorities and my list is as follows: 1. Work load management and prioritisation 2. Internal relations and effective working of the Council 3. External relations and effective representation of the Council I am sure most of you will think of other areas that you may wish to see on this list. In any case, I look forward to expanding on points 1-3 above with some practical initiatives. In the meantime, and indeed for the whole of my term as chair of the Council, I will welcome any constructive input and feedback from you. As discussed at various points, my overarching objective is to work with you, the groups you represent and the relevant ICANN staff to ensure that the GNSO Council is effective, seen to be effective and that our work is appreciated and respected. Best wishes, Jonathan

5 5

RE: [council] URS follow-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

Jeff, you are correct. But I think what we sort of agreed to was to have a group ready if it is needed. At the very least, the kind of suggestions that NAF has made related to the number of requests in a single URS seems reasonable (although I admit that my presumption was that the limit was already 1). But as you, I worked hard on the STI and will do so again if more work is needed. Alan At 25/10/2012 04:11 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >All, > >I am not sure why we are giving this request any >credibility. Sorry for my bluntness, but no one >answered my questions during the GNSO session or >afterwards. We seem to be conceding to ICANN >that a team is necessary to revise URS policy >even before seeing any of the results of the RFI >which we now know there is at least one bidder >that will propose doing the URS in accordance >with the current policies laid out in the Guidebook for the price expected. > >To concede now that policy work needs to be done >is conceding that the ICANN is in fact held >hostage by the current vendors providing >existing UDRP services. If we do indeed need to >develop new policies around the URS (which at >this point in time, there is no evidence that >this needs to be done), I think we should >address it then. But arent we putting the cart before the horse? > >All of those caveats aside, if we are forced to >set up a group, you can count on my participation. > >Thanks! > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert >Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:17 PM >To: Jonathan Robinson >Cc: 'Petter Rindforth'; council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: Re: [council] URS follow-up > >I would like to join this, too! > >Thomas > > >Am 22.10.2012 um 22:35 schrieb Jonathan Robinson ><<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>: > > >Many thanks Peter. > >Good to have you on board for this and other items. > >Best wishes, > > >Jonathan > >From: ><mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth >Sent: 22 October 2012 00:38 >To: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >Subject: Re: [council] FW: URS follow-up > >Dear Jonathan and All new Colleagues, > >Just to express my interest in participate in >the further work with URS (as it seems we now have to). > >I have experience as an .xxx Arbitrator and also >created the Swedish ADR Accelerated Proceeding, >so I hope I can therewith add some ideas - and >questions - in order to have a fast as possible >final solution regarding the URS. > >Best, >Petter > > >-- > >Petter Rindforth, LL M > > > >Fenix Legal KB > >Stureplan 4c, 4tr > >114 35 Stockholm > >Sweden > >Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 > >Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 > >E-mail: <mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu > >www.fenixlegal.eu > > > > > >NOTICE > >This e-mail message is intended solely for the >individual or individuals to whom it is >addressed. It may contain confidential >attorney-client privileged information and >attorney work product. If the reader of this >message is not the intended recipient, you are >requested not to read, copy or distribute it or >any of the information it contains. Please >delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. > >Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>www.fenixlegal.eu > >Thank you >On 21 okt 2012 23:44 "Jonathan Robinson" ><mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com><jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> wrote: >All, > >Please be aware of the following note from Olof >Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues. > >Jonathan > >From: Olof Nordling >[<mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org>mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] >Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 >To: <mailto:jonathan.robinson@iprota.com>jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com >Cc: Kurt Pritz >Subject: URS follow-up > >Dear Jonathan, >Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO >Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all >Council members for the constructive discussions >we had on URS matters on 18 October! The >willingness to consider a drafting team to >address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. > >The subsequent URS session the same day in >Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to >presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential >URS providers, we had the advantage of a very >late addition to the agenda a presentation >from a new entrant, Intersponsive, intending >to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the >target fee, although with some adjustments of >the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they >would be able to stay within the target fee, >provided reasonable limitations could be >established to the current translation >requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint. > >I realize that you and other Council members >couldnt attend this session, as it partially >overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but >the recording is available at ><http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. >Furthermore, there are a number of relevant >documents posted on our recently established URS >web page at ><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, >notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, >with considerations, proposals, some costing >aspects and, most importantly, questions needing >to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard). > >I believe these recent developments further >clarifies the need for a drafting team to >establish realistic implementation measures >based on the URS text. I look forward to further >contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. > >Very best regards >Olof > > > >___________________________________________________________ >Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt >Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) >Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert >HRB 9262, AG Bonn > >Büro / Office Bonn: >Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany >Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 > >Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: >Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany >Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 > >Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 > >mailto: rickert(a)anwaelte.de >skype-id: trickert >web: <http://www.anwaelte.de>www.anwaelte.de >

2 1

RE: [council] URS follow-up
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

All, As I did at the wrap-up meeting, I must vote with Jeff on this. If prioritization is a priority (pun intended), this is still a make-work item. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] URS follow-up From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Thu, October 25, 2012 1:11 pm To: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Cc: "'Petter Rindforth'" <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, I am not sure why we are giving this request any credibility. Sorry for my bluntness, but no one answered my questions during the GNSO session or afterwards. We seem to be conceding to ICANN that a team is necessary to revise URS policy even before seeing any of the results of the RFI which we now know there is at least one bidder that will propose doing the URS in accordance with the current policies laid out in the Guidebook for the price expected. To concede now that policy work needs to be done is conceding that the ICANN is in fact held hostage by the current vendors providing existing UDRP services. If we do indeed need to develop new policies around the URS (which at this point in time, there is no evidence that this needs to be done), I think we should address it then. But aren’t we putting the cart before the horse? All of those caveats aside, if we are forced to set up a group, you can count on my participation. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:17 PM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: 'Petter Rindforth'; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] URS follow-up I would like to join this, too! Thomas Am 22.10.2012 um 22:35 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>: Many thanks Peter. Good to have you on board for this and other items. Best wishes, Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth Sent: 22 October 2012 00:38 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] FW: URS follow-up Dear Jonathan and All new Colleagues, Just to express my interest in participate in the further work with URS (as it seems we now have to). I have experience as an .xxx Arbitrator and also created the Swedish ADR Accelerated Proceeding, so I hope I can therewith add some ideas - and questions - in order to have a fast as possible final solution regarding the URS. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KBStureplan 4c, 4tr114 35 StockholmSwedenFax: +46(0)8-4631010Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.euwww.fenixlegal.eu NOTICEThis e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.euThank youOn 21 okt 2012 23:44 "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> wrote: All, Please be aware of the following note from Olof Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues. Jonathan From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com Cc: Kurt Pritz Subject: URS follow-up Dear Jonathan, Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all Council members for the constructive discussions we had on URS matters on 18 October! The willingness to consider a drafting team to address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. The subsequent URS session the same day in Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential URS providers, we had the advantage of a very late addition to the agenda – a presentation from a “new entrant”, Intersponsive, intending to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the target fee, although with some adjustments of the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they would be able to stay within the target fee, provided reasonable limitations could be established to the current translation requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint. I realize that you and other Council members couldn’t attend this session, as it partially overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but the recording is available at http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. Furthermore, there are a number of relevant documents posted on our recently established URS web page at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, with considerations, proposals, some costing aspects and, most importantly, questions needing to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard). I believe these recent developments further clarifies the need for a drafting team to establish realistic implementation measures based on the URS text. I look forward to further contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. Very best regards Olof ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert(a)anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de

2 1

Re: [council] FW: URS follow-up
by Petter Rindforth Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

Dear Jonathan and All new Colleagues, Just to express my interest in participate in the further work with URS (as it seems we now have to). I have experience as an .xxx Arbitrator and also created the Swedish ADR Accelerated Proceeding, so I hope I can therewith add some ideas - and questions - in order to have a fast as possible final solution regarding the URS. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> <http://www.fenixlegal.eu/> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, <http://www.fenixlegal.eu/> Thank you On 21 okt 2012 23:44 "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> wrote: > All, > > Please be aware of the following note from Olof Nordling when we next > consider the URS and associated issues. > > Jonathan > > From:Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] > Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 > To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com > Cc: Kurt Pritz > Subject: URS follow-up > > Dear Jonathan, > Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO Council Chair and many > thanks to you and to all Council members for the constructive > discussions we had on URS matters on 18 October! The willingness to > consider a drafting team to address URS implementation questions and > issues is much appreciated. > > The subsequent URS session the same day in Toronto proved most > interesting. In addition to presentations from NAF and WIPO as > potential URS providers, we had the advantage of a very late addition > to the agenda – a presentation from a “new entrant”, Intersponsive, > intending to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the target fee, > although with some adjustments of the URS provisions. Also NAF > clarified that they would be able to stay within the target fee, > provided reasonable limitations could be established to the current > translation requirements and to the number of domain names covered by > a single complaint. > > I realize that you and other Council members couldn’t attend this > session, as it partially overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but > the recording is available at > <http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3>. > Furthermore, there are a number of relevant documents posted on our > recently established URS web page at > <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>, notably contributions > from NAF, WIPO and CAC, with considerations, proposals, some costing > aspects and, most importantly, questions needing to be resolved (the > NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard). > > I believe these recent developments further clarifies the need for a > drafting team to establish realistic implementation measures based on > the URS text. I look forward to further contacts with you and the > Council on this matter in the near future. > > Very best regards > Olof > >

5 6

GNSO Council Meeting Dates - 2012 / 2013
by Jonathan Robinson Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

All, The very first practicality is to make sure we are all clear on the planned dates for our regular GNSO Council meetings. As mentioned in Toronto, we will stick to the current schedule for 2012 and propose to continue with a similar pattern for 2013. The current pattern is to work on the 3rd Thursday of each month at a rotating time slot. The regular pattern meeting coincides well with the ICANN meeting in Durban. I suggest that we skip August and consider an additional meeting early in September 2013 if necessary. I will ask Glen to confirm the list of dates ASAP and then to post these on the GNSO website and to send out invitations to all councillors for these meetings. It would be helpful to me and, I assume others, to have a calendar invitation for each of the meetings in order to reduce effort on manual input. If you prefer to enter manually, please ignore / delete the calendar invitations. Any questions or input, please feel free to provide it. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0

Call for Volunteers: 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

<http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23oct12-en.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23oct12-en.htm Date: 23 October 2012 In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) that has been chartered to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future. What This Group Will Do As part of its deliberations on this issue, the PDP WG is expected, at a minimum, to consider the following elements as detailed in the <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report: * Response consistency: a 'thick' Registry can dictate the labeling and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be applied. * Stability: in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a 'thick' registry. * Accessibility: is the provision of Whois information at the registry level under the 'thick' Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a 'thin' model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual property owners? * Impact on privacy and data protection: how would 'thick' Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? * Cost implications: what are the cost implications of a transition to 'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated? * Synchronization/migration: what would be the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to 'thick' WHOIS as well as ongoing operations? * Authoritativeness: what are the implications of a 'thin' Registry possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should consider the term "authoritative" in both the technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue. * Competition in registry services: what would be the impact on competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois service using the 'thick' Whois model would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services? * Existing Whois Applications: What, if anything, are the potential impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if 'thick' WHOIS is required for all gtLDs? * Data escrow: 'thick' Whois might obviate the need for the registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars. * Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements: 'thick' Whois could make the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant. For further details and requirements, see the <https://community.icann.org/x/H4EoAg> WG Charter. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. WGs typically meet once a week by telephone for a minimum of one hour. The meetings of the WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the 'thick' Whois PDP WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The WG is expected to follow the <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines. In addition, the WG is expected to follow the procedures outlined in the <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf> GNSO PDP Manual. How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20%27thic k%27%20Whois%20PDP%20Working%20Group> GNSO secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through Registry Agreements (RAs) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for the generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries. Registries have historically satisfied their Whois obligations under two different models. The two models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are maintained. WHOIS contains two kinds of data about a domain name; one set of data is associated with the domain name (this information includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in the Registry database, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service), and a second set of data that is associated with the registrant of the domain name. In a thin registration model the Registry only collects the information associated with the domain name from the Registrar. The Registry in turn publishes that information along with maintaining certain status information at the Registry level. Registrars maintain data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor. In a thick registration model the Registry collects both sets of data (domain name and registrant) from the Registrar and in turn publishes that data via Whois. As recommended by the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council asked ICANN staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs. The Council requested that the Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process consider a possible requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs in the context of IRTP and also consider any positive and/or negative effects likely to occur outside of IRTP that should be taken into account when deciding whether to require "thick" Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. ICANN staff submitted <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for consideration on 2 February 2012. At its meeting in Costa Rica last March, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process on "thick" Whois. However, considering the workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council on 12 April resolved to delay the formation of a drafting team to develop a charter until December 2012. The Council reconsidered that decision at its meeting in Prague in June 2012, and decided to move forward with the PDP. A drafting team was formed to develop a charter which was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 17 October 2012. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations
by Margie Milam Oct. 23, 2012

Oct. 23, 2012

Dear All, As discussed last week, I updated the draft WHOIS RT summary chart to include the clarifications requested by the ISP Constituency, and to include a column clarifying whether there was agreement with the substance of each recommendation, based upon the comments submitted in the Public Comment Forum (PCF) for the WHOIS Review Team Final Report. In reviewing the comments<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-whois-rt-final-…> filed in the PCF, I did not locate submissions from each constituency/SG, making it difficult to complete the chart. Notably missing were comments from Registrars, NCSG, or the IPC on the Final Report (although in some cases there were submissions on the draft report). In addition, from the comments actually submitted, it was not clear whether the commentators agreed/disagreed with the recommendation itself, since many of the comments appeared to address aspects of the recommendations, as opposed to evaluating the recommendation holistically. As a result, it is important that each constituency/stakeholder group review the information contained in the attached chart, and indicate whether they agree/disagree with each of the recommendations. Please provide this information by COB Monday, October 29, 2012, so that the chart can be finalized in advance of the Board's consideration of the WHOIS RT Final Report Recommendations. All the best, Margie _______ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _______

1 0

Oct. 22, 2012

Agreed. The GAC position is that the names cannot be used. As Jeff has repeatedly said, the USE of these names may be forbidden, but so is the use of certain words in certain countries. If we expect all registries to deny registrations of these names, they must be explicitly listed in the contracts. Historically the reserved names list has been changed without the benefit of a PDP - compare: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/verisign/appendix-06-01… and http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/verisign/registry-agmt-…. I am not sure if these changes were all the result of Board action, or simply staff action. In any case, we need to NOT say that a PDP is required for any change of that list. History says otherwise. And in my mind, there is no reason to believe that this is still not the case. However, given the likelihood (already experienced) of others saying "me too", a formal PDP is warranted. The fact that the GAC is willing to create a specific list (something I suggested a while ago and was told the GAC would *never* agree to do such operational work) makes it implementable if the PDP should decide that reservation is warranted. Alan At 21/10/2012 07:30 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >I will help with this one. My explanation >during the Council meeting and then again during >the public forum should be of some assistance here. > >Best regards, > >Jeffrey J. Neuman > >Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 06:00 PM Eastern Standard Time >To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [council] RE: [council] GAC CommuniquÃ© from Toronto > > >All, > >Please be particularly aware of the paragraphs in Section IV, item 3 on page >5 including the following: > >"The GAC will seek clarification from the GNSO as to its rationale for >initiating a PDP." > >Jonathan > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On >Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin >Sent: 21 October 2012 01:18 >To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [council] GAC CommuniquÃ© from Toronto > >Hello All, > >Attached for information is the GAC CommuniquÃ© from Toronto. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

1 0