October 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Q&A session with council chair candidates
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 14, 2012

Oct. 14, 2012

All, for (late) preparation of this session it may be helpful to collect questions in advance. I'm asking you to put candidate questions to the list which could be used by the session leader for a structured Q&A session. I'll ask the following: * How would you prioritize council workload in order to achieve working results in an effective way? * How do you see a GNSO (council) role re outreach activities? * How do you think the GNSO/council is represented best towards other ICANN bodies? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

4 3

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 14, 2012

Oct. 14, 2012

FYI GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form Name of Officer: * SteveDelBianco Officer Email Address: * sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date Prepared: * Saturday, October 13, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Business Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Vice Chair for Policy Coordination Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Councilor Zahid Jamil was denied a Visa to travel to Toronto Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Proxy for voting on motions coming before the council during Toronto meetings, whenever Zahid Jamil is unable to vote via telephone. 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, October 19, 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: * John Berard

1 0

RE: [council] Consumer Metrics Draft Motion
by john＠crediblecontext.com Oct. 14, 2012

Oct. 14, 2012

1 0

Re: [council] Consumer Metrics Draft Motion
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2012

Oct. 14, 2012

John, a bit late, but on summarizing the Council Motions for the ALAC, I noticed that this one is entitled "Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC)", which sounds like it is approving the creation of the group instead of approving the group's work product. Perhaps: Motion on the Adoption of the Advice Letter of the Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC) Alan At 13/09/2012 12:55 PM, john(a)crediblecontext.com wrote: >All, Here is the motion I intend to offer for consideration in >Toronto. It is short enough and the time long enough that we might >even be able to put it on the consent agenda for the meeting.

3 2

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#103]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2012

Oct. 13, 2012

FYI 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: samedi 13 octobre 2012 16:46 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#103] Name of Officer: * Steve DelBianco Officer Email Address: * sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org%20> Date Prepared: * Saturday, October 13, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Business Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Vice Chair for Policy Coordination Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Councilor Zahid Jamil was denied a Visa to travel to Toronto Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Proxy for election votes on Council during Toronto meetings. 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, October 19, 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: * John Berard

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#101]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 12, 2012

Oct. 12, 2012

FYI 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: dimanche 7 octobre 2012 17:31 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#101] Name of Officer: * Robin Gross Officer Email Address: * robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> Date Prepared: * Sunday, October 7, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Joy Liddicoat is unable to attend the Toronto ICANN Meeting, therefore Milton Mueller will serve as her Temporary Alternate during the meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All. 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] * Saturday, October 20, 2012 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Milton Mueller Temporary Alternate Email Address: * Mueller(a)syr.edu<mailto:Mueller@syr.edu>

1 0

Updated WHOIS Review Team Summary Chart
by Margie Milam Oct. 12, 2012

Oct. 12, 2012

Dear All, Please find for your review an updated Final Summary Chart of the WHOIS RT Final Report Recommendations for tomorrow's discussions. This chart was updated to clean up the formatting, and to incorporate the comments from the Business Constituency. Also attached is a slide to assist tomorrow's discussion. All the best, Margie _______ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _______

1 0

Draft Motion and Updated Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs
by Margie Milam Oct. 11, 2012

Oct. 11, 2012

Dear All, Please find attached for the GNSO Council's review and consideration, a draft motion to initiate a PDP on the Protection of the Names of International Organizations. Also attached is an updated Final Issue Report. The only changes relate to cleaning up the use of certain definitions (using INGOs of NGOs). Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________ From: Margie Milam Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:53 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of International Organizations in New GTLDs Dear All, We are pleased to submit to the GNSO Council for its review and consideration, the Final Issue Report on the Protection of the Names of International Organizations in New gTLDs. This Final Issue Report follows the closing of the public comment forum on the Preliminary Issue Report. We look forward to supporting the GNSO Council's activities at the Toronto Meeting with respect to this important issue. All the Best, Margie Milam _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________

4 5

Fake renewal update
by Mason Cole Oct. 11, 2012

Oct. 11, 2012

Councilors -- On the subject of GNSO action on fake renewal notices, you recall I volunteered to investigate with the Registrar Stakeholder Group various alternatives to evaluate the most effective method for addressing the problem. In my 11 September 2012 email to the council, registrars proposed the following steps as a way to arrive at a solution: 1. Discuss the issue with ICANN Compliance to make SG and GNSO concerns known, as previous legal actions may impact renewal of offenders' accreditation agreements. 2. Communicate to jurisdictional authorities as a SG to make our concerns known and to assess renewed enforcement – especially authorities like the FTC and the Canadian consumer agency that have already brought cases and may have stronger enforcement tools (e.g., civil penalties for violations of settlement agreements, etc.) that can be used. 3. Report findings to the GNSO Council. 4. Investigate whether or not enforceable contract language can be crafted, and the extent to which it could be equally or more effective than enforcement actions to date. For example, rather than requiring ICANN to make a determination about the behavior, a contractual provision that says accreditation can be revoked where a registrar has been found to be in violation of a court order or regulatory cease and desist order. I spoke with the compliance team, as promised. They are well aware that one actor is particularly infamous for this practice, and has been subject to American and Canadian consumer protection actions in the early to mid part of the last decade. We don't have any evidence obviously of how he responded to those actions, except that we know the offenses persist. There have been comparatively minimal complaints made to compliance -- fewer than 100 since 2008 -- on this subject (no matter who the actor). This DOES NOT suggest it's a small problem -- only that ICANN doesn't receive many complaints about it. Others certainly do. Complaint volume contributes to issue prioritization, as you might know, and therefore this has been comparatively low on their operational priority list. Further, the accreditation agreement, as discussed, doesn't address marketing speech, a thorny area to begin with. Enforcement against the actor might, however, be pursued by looking at previous action by US and Canadian governments to see if it can be used against their accreditation. However, registrars believe it is inappropriate to do so without clearer understanding of applicable law and a plan for what would happen to end-user names if the accreditation were to be revoked. The RrSG's recommended next step is to collect evidence of the activity and provide it again to consumer protection authorities. We conferred with our legal advisor about this. In the US, the Better Business Bureau helps consumers and businesses form very effective complaints for the immediate attention of consumer protection authorities, and our advisor is prepared to call on relationships she has with the BBB and the authorities to fast-track the issue. To be fair, since their previous action, they may be unaware that the actor is up to his old tricks. This approach, we believe, has two benefits: 1. The FTC and others handle consumer protection matters full time and are far better prepared to take binding action that will have enforceable impact. We recognize previous action was not ultimately effective -- which says that if the FTC as consumer protection experts have difficulty, the GNSO is likely to have more difficulty in rooting out the problem. 2. Another judgment could give Compliance a more firm route to enforcement via the terms of the accreditation. That is, another judgment on record can be the basis of pursuing the accreditation itself. I have asked registrars to provide documentation of the offending behavior, which they have begun to do. Further, the DT collected input an evidence of the behavior during its work, which I've added to the documentation. We will form this into a complaint for authorities in our respective jurisdictions and ask for immediate attention. We're aware there is impatience in the community on this problem (where ISN'T there impatience in the community?) but as we've said before, the critical element is to be effective, or we'll end up talking about this again a year from now. I would ask the Council to observe the results of this step before we move forward with another option that may not have the impact we intend. I'm happy to review this in any of our sessions in Toronto, or to speak with any of you individually about it. While there are some allowances on issues of predatory marketing, please keep in mind our ongoing obligation to stay within anti-trust rules when discussing our competition (even if it's a bad guy). I will keep the Council updated as this progresses. Thanks -- Mason

1 0

Application for New GNSO Constituency Candidacy-"Public Internet Access/Cybercafe Ecosystem"
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 11, 2012

Oct. 11, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10oct12-en.htm Application for New GNSO Constituency Candidacy-"Public Internet Access/Cybercafe Ecosystem" Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 10 October 2012 Comment Close: 17 November 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10oct12-en.htm> Reply Open: 18 November 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:afc-ccaoi-piacc@icann.org> Reply Close: 17 December 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/afc-ccaoi-piacc/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Participation * Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): ICANN has received its first application under the New GNSO Constituency Recognition Process adopted by the ICANN Board in June 2011. The purpose of this forum is to notify the ICANN community and solicit feedback on the Application for Candidacy (AFC) submitted by the Cyber Café Association of India (CCAOI), to form a new GNSO Constituency called the "Public Internet Access/Cybercafé Ecosystem (PIA/CC)". The application package submitted by CCAOI requests that the new Constituency be approved for recognition within the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). Community input will help inform deliberations by the NCSG as it evaluates the application. Current Status: This Public Comment period is part of Step 1-Application Phase of the "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies" which is accessible at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/form-new-constituency.htm. The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), as the requested home for the proposed new Constituency, has been notified of the application and advised as to its responsibilities and associated timeframes. Next Steps: Within 10 days of the conclusion of the Public Comment/Reply periods (18 December 2012), ICANN Staff will publish a Report of the community's feedback concerning this application. According to the process requirements, the NCSG has 90 days from date of application receipt to formulate an "Accept" or "Reject" decision as to whether the proposed Constituency should proceed to Step 2-Candidate Phase. The NCSG's decision, together with supporting rationale, will be forwarded to the ICANN Board for its review and action. For additional details concerning the steps, roles/responsibilities, applicable criteria, actions, and timetables associated with this process, please see the actual procedures. A flowchart of the process is also available (and can be separately downloaded) at http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/form-new-constituency.htm. Staff Contact: Robert Hoggarth Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Application%20for%20New%20GNSO%20Constituency%20Candidacy-%27Public%20Internet%20Access/Cybercafe%20Ecosystem%27%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose In accordance with the requirements of the "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies, the Cyber Cafe Association of India (CCAOI) has formally requested that a prospective new GNSO Constituency to be called "Public Internet Access/Cybercafé Ecosystem (PIA/CC)" be approved as a member of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). CCAOI completed and submitted an Application for Candidacy (AFC) form as well as cover letter (see Section III for document links). That application package was then supplemented at CCAOI's request with some follow-up email correspondence to ICANN Staff. The ICANN community is invited to comment on all aspects of this application. Section II: Background On 24 June 2011, the ICANN Board approved a "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies." The process was designed to accomplish four goals: 1. Optimize the considerable time and effort required to form, organize, and propose a new GNSO Constituency by prescribing a streamlined sequence of steps and associated evaluation criteria that are objective, fair, and transparent - with ample opportunity for community input; 2. Delegate more authority to each GNSO Stakeholder Group in evaluating new Constituency proposals while maintaining the Board's oversight role; 3. Manage the entire process to a flexible, but specific and limited timeframe; and 4. Provide a partial set of criteria for use during the periodic review of the GNSO. The approved process contains two distinct steps or phases: Applicant and Candidate. A petitioner initiates the process by completing an Application for Candidacy (AFC) form. Staff then opens a Public Comment period and forwards the application to the GNSO Stakeholder Group in which the applicant requests placement. The SG has 90 days to review the application and formulate an "Accept" or "Reject" decision, with supporting rationale, which is then subject to Board ratification. Following successful completion of the Applicant Phase, a limited six-month Candidate Phase follows during which a provisional Constituency, acting in an observer status, is expected to demonstrate having achieved certain participation and membership recruiting standards as well as producing a charter document. At the end of the second phase, the SG, with Board concurrence, decides whether the candidate will be approved as a Recognized Constituency. The entire procedure, the phase criteria, as well as a process flowchart are available for download at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/form-new-constituency.htm Section III: Document and Resource Links * CCAOI Application for Candidacy (AFC) Form<http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/constituencies/afc-ccaoi-piacc-23aug12-en.pdf> [PDF, 324 KB] * CCAOI AFC Supplement<http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/constituencies/afc-supplement-ccaoi-piacc-10…> [PDF, 83 KB] * CCAOI Cover Letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/choudhury-to-icann-board-23aug12-en…> [PDF, 178 KB] * GNSO Website link for New Constituency Recognition Process<http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/form-new-constituency.htm> Section IV: Additional Information Additional review and comment time is being provided to account for the upcoming ICANN Public Meeting in Toronto. The comment period spans 35 days and the reply comment period spans 30 days. (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0