November 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

IRTP Part C GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board
by Marika Konings 08 Nov '12

08 Nov '12

Dear All, Apologies, I just realised this message was stuck in my outbox, and even though it is past the deadline, I'm hoping the GNSO Council may still want to consider this item as part of its consent agenda for the upcoming meeting. Attached you will find the proposed IRTP Part C Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board for your approval. As you may have seen, as required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum has now been opened prior to ICANN Board consideration of these recommendations (see https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-recommendations-22oct12- en.htm). Comments may be submitted until 12 November, followed by a reply period, if appropriate. With best regards, Marika

1 0

ICANN blog entry on trademark clearinghouse discussions in Brussels last week
by Bruce Tonkin 08 Nov '12

08 Nov '12

From: http://blog.icann.org/ Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse by Fadi Chehadé on November 7, 2012 Last week, I invited a group of stakeholder representatives to work with ICANN on architecture/implementation solutions for the Trademark Clearinghouse. The issues we tackled included: ■ Registration: How trademark data will be verified and recorded in the Clearinghouse. ■ Sunrise Management: How new gTLD registries will use Clearinghouse data to confirm eligibility for early registration of domain names. ■ Claims Management: How new gTLD registries and registrars will facilitate required notices of Clearinghouse records during the domain name registration process. Members of the Business, Intellectual Property, and Non-commercial Users constituencies, as well as the Registrar and Registry stakeholder groups, all contributed to a constructive discussion on implementation approaches, and found common ground in several areas. Here is a summary of our findings: **** Trademark Submission and Verification **** ** Publication of Functional Specifications ICANN will provide a roadmap for the development of the trademark submission and verification components of the Clearinghouse in December 2012. It will clearly define the capabilities that will be available in the initial release planned for early 2013, to support those parties who will be implementing and building internal processes and systems to work with this element of the Clearinghouse. ** TLD Launch and Sunrise Information ICANN is exploring options to help ensure that timely and accurate information on new gTLD launches is readily available. The options we discussed include an advance notice requirement and a central web portal to track the dates and requirements for each new gTLD sunrise period. Organizing this information in a timely fashion will keep users informed of current activity and help them plan effectively for upcoming launches. ICANN will deliver such capabilities next year before delegating any new gTLDs. ** Communications and Training Activities We agreed that there should be implementation seminars conducted periodically to ensure a continuous dialogue between the implementers and the different types of users. Given the diversity of users we expect will access the Clearinghouse (including a range of volume and service roles), training “tracks” will help Clearinghouse users become familiar with specific features most useful to them. Educational materials, including a step-by-step guide to the verification process, also will be available. ICANN will coordinate the provisioning of such services with its delivery partner in the near term. **** Sunrise Implementation **** ** Use of Signed Sunrise Data Files The group agreed to support a model for sunrise in which Clearinghouse record data is provided to rights holders in the form of a data file cryptographically signed with a Clearinghouse public key. It can then be used to enable registration of a domain name in the sunrise period. The specific fields to be included in the file are matters for follow-up discussions. ** Flexibility for Rights Holders in Sunrise The group discussed the degree of “matching” that should be required between the Clearinghouse record and the Whois data for a domain name registered based on the sunrise eligibility. Given that a valid data file means that the Clearinghouse has verified the information, and that flexibility is important to trademark holders, we did not reach agreement on a matching requirement. However, registries are free to perform additional verification steps at their discretion. Dispute resolution procedures are available to address cases of fraud or other abuse relating to sunrise registrations. **** Trademark Claims Implementation **** ** Centralized and De-centralized Features Participants reviewed the features of possible centralized and decentralized systems, and agreed to support a “hybrid” system for Trademark Claims. In this system, a file of domain name labels derived from the trademarks recorded in the Clearinghouse (and hence subject to a Claims Notice) would be distributed to all registries and updated on a regular basis, and a live query system would be used to retrieve the detailed data from the Clearinghouse when necessary to display the Claims Notice to a prospective registrant. To ensure accuracy and consistency across TLDs, it was agreed that there should be a compliance requirement for the Clearinghouse to report to ICANN when registries don’t download the list of names with the frequency required. ** Registry guidelines All new gTLD registries are required to offer a minimum 30-day sunrise period, and to offer the trademark claims service for the at least first 60 days of general registration. Participants agreed to collaborate on recommended definitions to support additional clarity around these periods, in connection with ICANN’s publication of guidelines for registries concerning the sunrise and claims services. The 30 and 60 day periods are minimums, and registries have discretion to extend both periods. ** Data protection There was discussion on implementing an appropriate framework for access and use of the data. The group considered whether measures were necessary specifically to address potential mining of the Clearinghouse database for purposes other than to support the rights protection mechanisms. Given that the Trademark Clearinghouse is designed to provide trademark data for particular purposes, there was agreement that most controls would be ineffective in attempting to control data elements once provided to other parties. **** Next Steps **** The work we accomplished last week in Brussels puts us on solid ground for continued progress. We will hold follow-up meetings next week in Los Angeles with stakeholder groups invited to send representatives. A technical session with the Clearinghouse service provider will cover implementation architecture for Sunrise and Trademark Claims. A second meeting will cover the recent IPC/BC proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB], strictly focusing on implementation versus policy issues, as well as the business and contractual framework for the Clearinghouse, including the service-level agreements and pricing. My thanks to both the stakeholders and the ICANN team for their contributions to this effort. We made real progress! Best, Fadi

1 0

FW: WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Jonathan Robinson 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 07 November 2012 12:10 To: Steve Crocker (steve(a)shinkuro.com) Cc: 'secretary(a)icann.org' Subject: WHOIS Review Team Final Report Dr Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors Dear Steve, Please see the attached regarding the GNSO and the WHOIS Review Team Final Report. Please also accept my apologies for the timing of this response relative to your meeting tomorrow. Yours sincerely, Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council

2 1

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
by Jonathan Robinson 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Fellow Councillors, You may recall that this motion was made in advance of, and was therefore on the agenda, of our Toronto meeting. In the event, the motion was not seconded before or in Toronto and was withdrawn prior to the Council voting on it. Moreover, the motion has not yet been resubmitted for consideration at our forthcoming meeting (15 November 2012). However, an Issues Report was requested by the Council and since we now have the Final Issues Report, I understand that our procedures require us to vote on whether or not to initiate a PDP and to not defer this vote for more than one meeting. Therefore, for procedural reasons, I am re-submitting the motion below to the Council for consideration and to be voted on at our forthcoming meeting (15 November 2012). Thank-you, Jonathan -------------------- WHEREAS: The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended in its Final Report 'the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse'; The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse on 6 October 2011; ICANN Staff posted the Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts on 25 July 2012 for public comment (see <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/uoc-prelim-issue-report-25jul12 -en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/uoc-prelim-issue-report-25jul12- en.htm); ICANN Staff reviewed the comments received and updated the report accordingly; The Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts was published on 20 September 2012; 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. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts (link) A DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. Following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP."

2 1

Re: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
by Alan Greenberg 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

To be clear, my support was on behalf of the ALAC and not solely my own. As I previously reported this was neither an easy nor unanimous decision for ALAC, but approval was given for the compromise position. Alsn At 07/11/2012 02:42 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >All, > >On behalf of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, I am pleased to present the >following motion which was supported by the Drafting Team. For the >record, I will note that the recommendations were not supported by >the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and Thomas Rickert, but were >supported by the Registries Stakeholder Group, the, Intellectual >Property Constituency, Business Constituency and ISP Constituency, >the representative from the ALAC, and those representatives from the >International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The >Registrars Stakeholder group did not participate on the Drafting Team. > >Thanks. >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR >CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC >COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES > >Made by: Jeff Neuman >Seconded by: > >WHEREAS: > >The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and >CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . >incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested >Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial >application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice >based on the global public interest, . . ." >(<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) > >The IOC/RC Drafting Team established [Date] by the GNSO Council has >considered a number of different options with respect to protections >of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal >to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the >second level in new gTLDS; > >The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP >and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC >names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed >on 9 November 2012; > >The GNSO has now [Date] initiated a policy development process (PDP) >to evaluate possible protections for certain international >organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to >recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and > >Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council >recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of >the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the >exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first >round of new gTLDs. > >NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: > >That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's >recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and >RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the >Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September >2011pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development >process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental >Organizations. > >That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team >for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby >disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and > >That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these >recommendations to the ICANN Board. > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >

1 0

WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Dear All, The letter has been published at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-board-07nov12-en.p df Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: mercredi 7 novembre 2012 13:12 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] FW: WHOIS Review Team Final Report From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 07 November 2012 12:10 To: Steve Crocker (steve(a)shinkuro.com) Cc: 'secretary(a)icann.org' Subject: WHOIS Review Team Final Report Dr Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors Dear Steve, Please see the attached regarding the GNSO and the WHOIS Review Team Final Report. Please also accept my apologies for the timing of this response relative to your meeting tomorrow. Yours sincerely, Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council

1 0

Draft minutes of NEW Council meeting in Toronto17 October 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the new GNSO Council meeting in Toronto held on 17 October 2012. 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/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-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 16 November 2012. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Letter to community from Fadi Chehadé
by Bruce Tonkin 06 Nov '12

06 Nov '12

Hello All, Attached for convenience is the letter from Fadi to the community - published on the ICANN website - with a summary of key goals between now and Beijing. Regards, Bruce Tonkin 5 November 2012 Dear ICANN Community Friends and Colleagues, Thank you for your warm welcome and expressions of support during my first weeks in this new role. The responsibilities you have entrusted me with are truly awesome. We have much to do together, so let's get to work! In Toronto, I promised you a summary of my key goals for the trimester ahead until we meet in Beijing. Here it is. OPERATIONS EXCELLENCE Operations Excellence is our highest priority. When ICANN fulfills its operational mission with distinction, it will not only strengthen the Domain Name System of which we are stewards, it will also engender trust and confidence, which are crucial to enhancing understanding and support for our role. The leadership team and I agreed that we have three key goals in this area for the trimester ahead: (1) Deliver on every aspect of the new gTLD program launch next year, meeting obligations and securing the necessary resources and personnel to lead the transition from what has been a policy-driven effort to implementation of a responsive and reliable operation. As a first step, we are working to advance the dialogue on implementation of the Trademark Clearing House. We must also execute the prioritization draw, evaluations, and pre-delegation tests flawlessly. (2) We will build a new gTLD services department including relationship/contract management, operations services, and support services. The new department will be structured to implement policies, operationalize its services for scale, and establish a tiered support center for the growing number of brands, registries, and registrars. Members of this new team will also shadow the policy development process to ensure we are developing 'implementable' policies before they are finalized. Finally, we will plan to reach consensus on a solid and enforceable Registrar Accreditation Agreement that is fair and balanced. (3) We will institutionalize management disciplines and implement an automated management system to increase visibility and accountability. The new system will enhance our metrics for delivery of on-time and on-budget projects. Once the system is operational, we will proceed to re-organize ICANN staff under the new leadership team using a matrix structure integrating global/regional/local roles to enable the internationalization of ICANN's mission and reduce departmental silos that hinder efficiencies. INTERNATIONALIZATION Our team will lead the realization of these key goals during the next trimester: (1) Following the successful model of the African community - in which a diverse group of stakeholders assessed their strengths and needs and presented a proposed engagement strategy for ICANN - we are starting discussions with stakeholders in Latin America and the Caribbean, India, Brazil, Turkey, and other locations. In this engagement model, ICANN will seek guidance from a country-level, multi-stakeholder, bottom-up process. These efforts will be in concert with members of our community and with fellow Internet coordinating organizations. (2) We will retool and 'localize' our communications efforts to get closer to our stakeholders everywhere. Following the successful launch of myICANN, we will continue to enhance this important engagement platform with increased functionality and content, specifically adding tools to streamline our collaborative activities with constituencies spread all over the world. (3) We will evolve ICANN's relationships with governments and IGOs, promulgating to policy makers and negotiators a clear understanding of ICANN's role. Our goal is increased awareness, acceptance and support for ICANN's multistakeholder model. We will achieve this with a broader engagement team, strategically deployed globally. EVOLVE THE MULTI STAKEHOLDER MODEL To evolve the multistakeholder model we need to both prepare for changes resulting from the new gTLD program and also improve the processes by which policy is made. We will also further promote the legitimacy of our model by demonstrating its effectiveness and its transparency. Our team will focus on these key deliverables: (1) We will enable more substantive inter-sessional discussions among stakeholders on challenging issues -- with particular focus on the new gTLD program -- and will encourage participants to see issues from the viewpoints of others. We will encourage consultation, collaboration and even negotiation among stakeholder groups on an ongoing basis, with an aim toward arriving at ICANN public meetings with more consensus. (2) ICANN's program to improve ethics and transparency is well underway, with the third of three independent/external reviews now completing its work. We will convert the recommendations of the reviews that have not yet been adopted into implementable standards and policies. (3) We will launch a strategy effort to retool the ICANN SO/AC structures, preparing them to serve the next billion Internet users - most of whom will emerge from outside North America and Europe. AFFIRMATION OF PURPOSE We will lead three key initiatives in this area: (1) We will plan the next Accountability and Transparency Review Team while pro-actively and continuously reviewing the efficacy of changes made as a result of the last ATRT review. (2) To strengthen our commitment to the public interest, we will launch a community effort addressing the WHOIS debate in a strategic way, to resolve the longstanding open items in this area. (3) We will plan a community wide effort to formulate an updated ICANN strategy for the next 3 years. ------------- You heard me speak in Toronto about Malala, the child who was shot and nearly killed by extremists for promoting the education of young girls . We are all relieved that she is now on the road to recovery! The Internet gave a voice to Malala and brought news of her plight to the world. Together, we are entrusted with this awesome resource. I invite each one of you to join me - along with our superb ICANN staff and board - on the hard but very worthwhile journey to make ICANN a model of efficiency and reliability. We are off to a new season! Fadi

1 0

REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline Wednesday, 7 November 2012 for GNSO Council meeting 15 November at 11:00 UTC
by Margie Milam 06 Nov '12

06 Nov '12

Dear All, This is a friendly reminder that tomorrow is the deadline for motions for next week's council meeting. Also, please note that we are working on a draft agenda for this meeting with Jonathan, and should be circulating it shortly. All the best, Margie _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 9:13 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Document and motion Deadline Wednesday, 7 November 2012 for GNSO Council meeting 15 November at 11:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.WEDNESDAY, 7 November 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 15 November 2012 at 11:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+November… 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

RE: Final GNSO WHOIS RT Summary Chart
by Winterfeldt, Brian 06 Nov '12

06 Nov '12

Dear all: I would like to thank Margie for her hard work collecting data and assembling the attached chart on the recommendations from the WHOIS Review Team Final Report. We owe an apology to the Board for taking longer on this endeavor than was originally anticipated. Attached for the consideration and approval of the entire Council please our draft letter to the Board. It is composed of a brief introductory letter, or executive summary, and a chart outlining each constituency and stakeholder position on whether there is agreement with each specific WHOIS Review Team Final Report recommendation and whether a Policy Development Process is required. We have attached a .DOC version of the letter and chart to facilitate any final additions or amendments. We look forward to expeditious consideration and approval by the Council, as well as delivery to the Board of Directors. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Margie Milam[SMTP:MARGIE.MILAM@ICANN.ORG] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:51:27 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Final GNSO WHOIS RT Summary Chart Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear All, Please find attached final summary chart, clean and redlined, to reflect all of the input received to date. Please note that the chart is missing any input from Registrars or the NCSG regarding whether they agree/disagree with each of the WHOIS RT recommendations. All the best, Margie _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________ From: Margie Milam Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:58 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations- REMINDER FOR FINAL COMMENTS Dear All, I just wanted to send a reminder on this, since I have only received comments from the IPC. Please let me know by COB today whether your SG/C has any additional comments to the chart. All the best, Margie From: Margie Milam Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:05 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations 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 _______

5 5