December 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

DNS Industry CEO Roundtable Events
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 22, 2012

Dec. 22, 2012

From: http://blog.icann.org/2012/12/dns-industry-ceo-roundtable-events DNS Industry CEO Roundtable Events by Fadi Chehadé on December 21, 2012 21 December 2012 To the ICANN Community, I believe The Domain Name System - and the Industry that has grown up around it - are at an inflection point. With the impending introduction of new gTLDs and the vertical integration of the DNS value chain, we, as leaders within the DNS ecosystem, must be ready to meet the challenges ahead. I am writing to tell you about my plans to meet with leaders of this marketplace to exchange ideas and information about the forthcoming challenges that this sector is likely to face. Sharing this information will help me gain a better understanding of what to expect, and how best to lead ICANN in partnering effectively with all stakeholders as this sector grows and matures. To achieve this, I am organizing a series of CEO Roundtables throughout 2013 to engage directly with leaders of the DNS industry. Our talks will focus on macro trends affecting the DNS sector, the impact of new gTLDs, and the need to evolve the frameworks that govern relationships among DNS industry participants. The first roundtable is to be held in mid January with registrars. Other roundtables will follow, including with the registries and other key players in the DNS ecosystem. Throughout the year, I plan to share the content of these discussions and engage across the spectrum of ICANN stakeholders. My aim, as always, is to ensure that ICANN is serving both the DNS sector and the broader global public interest - fulfilling our mandate to enable competition and choice, while remaining a responsible steward of the DNS. I look forward to these events and to sharing the insights we gather with all of you in the coming months. Sincerely, Fadi

1 0

RE: [council] Some comments on the draft initial letter to the GAC
by Winterfeldt, Brian Dec. 21, 2012

Dec. 21, 2012

Dear all: I am fine with Jonathan’s draft letter as well as John’s proposed stylistic changes. I think best intentions goes without saying and might suggest amending the final paragraph as follows. “In the meantime, please be assured of the GNSO Council’s best intentions as well as our appreciation of the critical role played by the GAC within the ICANN multi-stakeholder model.” Also, the GAC may be unclear on what is meant by “the leadership team of the GNSO Council.” Why not just say, “we”? I hope that input is helpful. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP – New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of john@crediblecontext.com[SMTP:JOHN@CREDIBLECONTEXT.COM<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com[SMTP:JOHN@CREDIBLECONTEXT.COM>] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:23:52 AM To: Jonathan Robinson; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Some comments on the draft initial letter to the GAC Auto forwarded by a Rule Jonathan, It seems as if I may have too much time on my hands -- I have made some suggestions of tone (I think) to the draft you proposed. Choose or ignore as you see fit. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388

2 1

MP3 recording GNSO Council Meeting Thursday, 20 December 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 20 December, 2012 at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#dec http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20121220-en.mp3 The Adobe Chat transcript is also posted on this page and can be directly viewed at : http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/chat-transcript-council-20dec12-en.pdf Please note that all MP3 recordings and transcripts are found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar (Click on the month) 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

GNSO Council Resolutions 20 December 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official minutes please find the two resolution passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 20 December 2012. 1 Motion to recommend protections in the first round of new gTLDs for certain Red Cross / Red Crescent (RCRC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names: ============================================================================================================================= 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) The IOC/RC Drafting Team established 1 November 2011 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 (17 October 2012) 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 2011 pending 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. 2. Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC) ===================================================================================== Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system (DNS), such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011; Whereas, the GNSO Council approved the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) for a Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition Working Group (CTCCCWG) to produce an Advice Letter for consideration by Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) to assist them in responding to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system; Whereas, the CCI WG created a draft Advice Letter and posted it for Public Comment (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctc-draft-advice-letter-23feb1…) Whereas, the CCI WG reviewed all Public Comments and feedback from public sessions and produced a Final Advice Letter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf) for consideration by the SOs and ACs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council endorses these recommendations for establishing the definition, measures and three-year targets for those measures for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system as described in the Final Advice Letter. RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council approves the delivery of the Final Advice Letter to the ICANN Board. RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the CTCCC WG members for their diligence and persistent efforts on this important topic and disbands the Working Group. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the premise
by Wendy Seltzer Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

A more complete version of my comments that that which appears in the report. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the premise Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:28:22 -0400 From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> To: Consumer CCI DT <gnso-consumercci-dt(a)icann.org> Hi Consumer Metrics team, I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust" metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust" metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable, rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses. The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free expression and innovation. Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users' activities. ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings. In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national laws:" namely, * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant; * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation; * Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws, including reported data security breaches; * Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns; * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD; * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by phishing sites in new gTLDs; * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new gTLDs; * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using new gTLDs * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and * Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate, invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection," "duplicates," and "traffic" measures. All of these presume that the use for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service to different parties, while some might be used to provide different services to parties including existing registrants. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0

Conflicts and the Draft reply to Fadi
by john＠crediblecontext.com Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

4 6

FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
by Jonathan Robinson Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

All, FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time. Jonathan From: GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38 To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice(a)apc.org; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) Subject: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

12 22

FW: GNSO Policy Guidance Requested
by Jonathan Robinson Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

All, Please be aware of the note received from Fadi late my time yesterday. Jonathan From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org] Sent: 19 December 2012 21:24 To: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com) Cc: David Olive Subject: GNSO Policy Guidance Requested Dear Jonathan: I am pleased that the TMCH Strawman Proposal is on the agenda for December 20th and wanted to let you know that if the Council needs additional time to develop the policy guidance requested, such as to allow for review of the comments received in the public comment forum, or to convene a group to evaluate the Strawman Model, that this would be acceptable so long the response was received by end of February, 2012. I apologize if my prior email was not clear in this regard, and I look forward to the Councils response on this matter. All the best, Fadi Chehadé President and CEO ICANN

1 0

RE: [council] Conflicts and the Draft reply to Fadi
by john＠crediblecontext.com Dec. 19, 2012

Dec. 19, 2012

4 4

The end of conflicts as we conjure them
by john＠crediblecontext.com Dec. 19, 2012

Dec. 19, 2012

1 0