December 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Consultation on IANA Secure Notification Process
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 12, 2012

Dec. 12, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12dec12-en.htm Consultation on IANA Secure Notification Process Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 12 December 2012 Comment Close: 10 January 2013 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12dec12-en.htm> Reply Open: 11 January 2013 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-iana-secure-notification@icann.org> Reply Close: 31 January 2013 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iana-secure-notification/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains * Internet Protocol Addressing * Transparency/Accountability * Security/Stability * Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): A consultation on the IANA Secure Notification Process, as part of the 2012 IANA Functions Contract. The feedback received during this consultation will help ICANN implement a secure notification system that best meets the needs of the relevant stakeholders. Current Status: Initial Public Consultation Next Steps: Review Comments Received Staff Contact: Kim Davies Email: kim.davies(a)icann.org<mailto:kim.davies@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Consultation%20on%20IANA%20Secure%20Notification%20Process%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract (SA1301-12-CN-0035) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to maintain the continuity and stability of services related to certain interdependent Internet technical management functions, known collectively as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority calls for a public consultation from all interested and affected parties to help satisfy the following objective: C.3.2 Secure Systems Notification - The Contractor shall implement and thereafter operate and maintain a secure notification system at a minimum, capable of notifying all relevant stakeholders of the discrete IANA functions, of such events as outages, planned maintenance, and new developments. In all cases, the Contractor shall notify the COR of any outages. Section II: Background This is one of a series of consultations for the delivery of the IANA functions, as described in contract SA1301-12-CN-0035. Section III: Document and Resource Links * Consultation on the IANA Secure Notification Process<http://www.iana.org/reviews/snp-201212> * Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 and related documents<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> Section IV: Additional Information None (*) 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Board letter to GAC (includes minor update on IOC / RC names protection)
by Jonathan Robinson Dec. 12, 2012

Dec. 12, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-07dec12-en Advice Item 3: New gTLDs - IGO Protections at the second level, posted at https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2012-10-17-IGO: "While the GAC continues its deliberations on the protection of the names and acronyms of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) against inappropriate third-party registration. The GAC advises the ICANN Board that: . in the public interest, implementation of such protection at the second level must be accomplished prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs, and in future rounds of gTLDs at the second and top level. The third item of advice is acknowledged. The GAC should receive a formal written response by 11 January 2013.

1 0

REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline Wednesday, 12 December 2012 for GNSO Council meeting 20 December at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 12, 2012

Dec. 12, 2012

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.WEDNESDAY, 12 December 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 December 2012 at 15:00 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+20+December… 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

Dates and Times for Council meetings 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 11, 2012

Dec. 11, 2012

Dear Councillors, The results of the doodle poll indicate that there is a preference for 18:00 UTC rather than 20:00 UTC for the following TWO meetings: 16 May and 10 October 2013, so the time for these has been changed accordingly. The dates and time for the Council meetings as well as the deadline dates for documents and motions in 2013 are noted below in text and published on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar/index-2013.htm 6 February Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 14 February 2013 14 February GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC 6 March Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013 14 March GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 UTC 2 April Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 10 April 2013 10 April GNSO Public Council meeting Beijing 14:00 or 15:00 Local time 8 May Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013 16 May GNSO Council Teleconference 18:00 UTC 5 June Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 13 June 2013 13 June GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC 9 July Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 17 July 2013 17 July GNSO Public Council meeting Durban 14:00 or 15:00 Local time 28 August Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 5 September 2013 5 September GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 - 18:00 UTC proposed three (3) hour meeting to make up for missed August meeting 2 October Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 10 October 2013 10 October GNSO Council Teleconference 18:00 UTC 30 October Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 7 November 2013 7 November GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC 27 November Motions and Documents due for GNSO Council meeting 5 December 2013 5 December GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00UTC Please note that the dates of the last three meetings are subject to change because the date of ICANN's AGM is not yet 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

Discussion kick-off on BC/IPC strawman proposal as blogged by Fadi
by Volker Greimann Dec. 11, 2012

Dec. 11, 2012

Dear fellow councillors, frankly, I do not like most of what I am seeing regarding the latest BC/IPC demands. The new proposals re-open and significantly expand upon carefully developed and agreed upon compromise positions beyond their original scope and intent at the last minute and more significantly, outside the established policy making mechanisms. Such a precedent will only serve to open the floodgates for any community or stakeholder group to reopen any nominally closed and agreed process to push their agenda just a little beyond what the community had already agreed upon. We should consider the ramifications of the CEO getting involved in what easily could be viewed as policy making decisions and that to me should be the focus of the council now as we look to provide feedback to Fadi about his strawman and what implications it would have on future policy development. While I welcome the more hands-on and practical approach of our new CEO, it would be helpful to have more detailed information on how ICANN staff and Fadi arrived at the conclusion that most of these positions are implementation issues rather than policy. However, even if it were implementation rather than policy, this does not mean these suggestions should be implemented without proper process and especially if the majority of the community is in disagreement. Just because you can does not mean you should. These proposals need to be vetted by the community, namely the GNSO Council. To quote Steve Crocker from the Toronto public forum: "Three more items. The rights protection in new gTLDs. The Intellectual Property Constituency and business constituency reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection and agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO AND THE BOARD LOOKS FORWARD TO receiving input on these suggestions FROM the GNSO. So that is our plan, so to speak, WHICH IS WE WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN AND WAIT FOR THIS TO COME UP" From what I have seen, the strawman proposal was developed by the IPC and the BC together with ICANN staff. Others made themselves available to discuss them, but it does not seem accuracte to say they actually developed the proposals. It is now our job as the GNSO council to weigh in and make our opinions on these proposals clear. To kick this process off, I will make the first move: -Blocking (aka "LPR"): While not directly included in the straw man, I understand this is still on the table. The paper on this proposal is well written and does an excellent job of totally blocking out the actual harms the implementation of this proposal would do. Its arguments only take into account other trademark holders that may apply in the sunrise period whose rights would naturally not be affected. No mention however is made of other legitimate potential registrants whose rights to a non-infringing registration after the sunrise phase would be completely eliminated. These include people with the same name as the mark, trademark holders not participating in the sunrise for whatever reason (newer trademark than permitted, lack of prior knowledge, etc) or companies without eligible trademarks. Frankly, only TM-holders that would otherwise participate in the Sunrise would think this is a good idea. There will likely be a lot of money to be made by implementing this demand but this is not good policy. -Claims 2: The extension of Trademark Claims is a service except for a very small part of the community for which there is no need and that will only serve to scare away otherwise legally eligible registrants, slow the registration process and drive up costs of registrations. As many of the new TLDs will initially have a very small market such restrictions will decrease the customer base even further. Furthermore, the description of the proposal as "voluntary" seems to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the proposal, since it will be anything but voluntary for registrants, registries and registrars. The only parties for whom the optional nature of this proposal applies are its sole beneficiaries. This proposal also does not take into account in any way how the technical systems of each individual registrar need to be adapted to set this system up. Having to implement a 60 day temporary system that will have light use (Regular claims) is simpler than a system that will have many more commands running through it and many more TLDs (as it will last for 1 year). Finally, the idea that registrars and registries will have to build these systems at their own cost and risk with no guarantee of compensation for their use as Rights Holders could opt out is not appropriate as it creates a definite financial burden for registries and registrars to alleviate a potential burden resulting from the presumed need for protection against infringing registrations. -Scope: This proposal is effectively a multiplier of the above issues, i.e. every problem resulting from the above proposals will be multiplied by up to 50 strings per TMCH entry. I also have come to understand that UDRP decisions are not always flawless or beyond reproach as many have been successfully overturned in court, so basing a blocking mechanisms on UDRP decisions seems like an overreach (again). -Notice: Of all the new demands put on the table by the IPC and the BC, the only one that I can support without issues is the Sunrise Notice Requirement. This is pure implementation, and makes sense both from a marketing as well as a RPM standpoint. The rest are mostly overreach to benefit a single interest group to the detriment of all others. Of course I understand the desire of users of the TMCH to protect their rights against infringements but the proposed measures must end exactly at the point where they begin to infringe upon the legitimate rights rights of others. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any registry from implementing any of these demands voluntarily, but as policy, I heartily disagree with both the process and format in which these proposals have been suggested and discussed as well - to a large degree - their content. Like I indicated above, this is a topic that needs to be discussed on our level and given the limited time on our schedules during the monthly council calls and the urgency of the matter, I would like to kick off the discussion with this paper. Best regards, Volker Greimann

5 6

Root Zone Scaling Measurements at L-Root
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 10, 2012

Dec. 10, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-07dec12-en.htm Root Zone Scaling Measurements at L-Root 7 December 2012 ICANN is the operator of L-Root, one of the thirteen root servers in the Domain Name System (DNS). To better be able to identify any performance impact on L-Root caused by a larger root zone, work is underway to implement additional instrumentation of L-Root's infrastructure. The attached document "Root Zone Scaling Measurements at L-Root<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/rssac/root-scaling-measurements-07dec12-en.p…>" [PDF, 4.99 MB] describes the planned measurements, and includes a timeline for implementation. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Survey Final Report Published
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 10, 2012

Dec. 10, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-07dec12-en.htm WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Survey Final Report Published 7 December 2012 In response to requests from the GNSO Council to gather data to inform future WHOIS policy development activities, ICANN has commissioned a series of studies to evaluate different aspects of WHOIS. The WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay/Reveal Final Report, prepared by the Interisle Consulting Group in Boston, MA, USA, is the first of these studies to be published by ICANN. The Final Report takes into account public comment received on the Draft Report (See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-survey-04jun12-en.htm<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-survey-04jun12-en.htm>), and is available at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-final-report-22aug12-en.… [PDF, 1.23 MB]. The Appendices are available at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-final-report-appendices-… [PDF, 2.11 MB]. This survey was organized to determine the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study to examine requests to relay communications to, and to reveal the identity of, customers of proxy and privacy services used in connection with gTLD domain names. The Interisle Consulting Group completed the survey in August 2012. The findings suggest that it may be feasible to tailor a future study to provide aggregated data and basic data collection from privacy and proxy providers. Such a future survey is likely to be well regarded by all stakeholders in the community, as it would provide significantly useful data in understanding how privacy and proxy providers manage relay and reveal requests. The GNSO Council is expected to evaluate whether to recommend a new future study based upon the findings of the WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Survey Final Report. For more information on the WHOIS Studies, please see: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TR: ATRT 2 - GNSO candidate
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 10, 2012

Dec. 10, 2012

FYI -----Message d'origine----- De : Alice Jansen [ Envoyé : lundi 10 décembre 2012 10:52 À : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : ATRT 2 - GNSO candidate Dear Glen, For your information - This is to notify that we have received an application from Avri Doria who wishes to represent the GNSO on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2). Should you wish to compile the GNSO applications on a GNSO wiki page, you will find Avri Doria's documents attached to this email. Kindly note that URLs are also available on the ATRT 2 applications webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/2/applications. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Thanks! Very best regards Alice On 04/12/12 07:12, "Avri Doria" wrote: >Hi, > >I have attached my information. > >I wish to be a candidate representing the GNSO. > >Thank you > >Avri Doria >

1 0

TR: ATRT 2 - GNSO candidate
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 10, 2012

Dec. 10, 2012

FYI De : Alice Jansen Envoyé : lundi 10 décembre 2012 10:50 À : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : ATRT 2 - GNSO candidate Dear Glen, For your information - This is to notify that we have received an application from Thomas Barrett who wishes to represent the GNSO on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2). Should you wish to compile the GNSO applications on a GNSO wiki page, you will find Thomas Barrett's documents attached to this email. Kindly note that URLs are also available on the ATRT 2 applications webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/2/applications. Tom provided GNSO information in addition to his CV, letter and statement of interests. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Thanks! Very best regards Alice From: Tom Barrett Reply-To: " Date: Monday 3 December 2012 19:34 To: "rtcandidatures(a)icann.org<mailto:rtcandidatures@icann.org>" <rtcandidatures(a)icann.org<mailto:rtcandidatures@icann.org>> Subject: Application to volunteer for ATRT 2 Attached are the documents requested from volunteers to theAffirmation of Commitment (AoC) Reviews Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team, including: 1. Letter of Motivation and Declaration of Interest 2. Additional GNSO Requirements 3. Curriculum Vitae Best regards, Thomas Barrett - President EnCirca, Inc <<...>> <<...>> <<...>>

1 0

IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels - Second Public Comment Draft
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 9, 2012

Dec. 9, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/lgr-procedure-07dec12-en.htm IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels - Second Public Comment Draft Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 7 December 2012 Comment Close: 6 January 2013 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07dec12-en.htm> Reply Open: 7 January 2013 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:lgr-procedure-07dec12@icann.org> Reply Close: 27 January 2013 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/lgr-procedure-07dec12> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): To receive community feedback on the latest draft of the "Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels - Second Public Comment Draft<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/draft-lgr-procedure-07dec12-en.pdf>" [PDF, 790 KB] Current Status: The IDN Variant TLD Program includes a project to establish the Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process for the DNS Root Zone. The project team includes expert consultants and a global team of volunteers. The project team has created new draft document and seeks a second round of community comment and input on the proposed process. Next Steps: The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Procedure document will be updated and published for implementation in the next phase of the IDN Variant TLD Program. Staff Contact: Francisco Arias Email: francisco.arias(a)icann.org<mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20IDN%20Variant%20TLD%20Program%20%E2%80%93%20Procedure%20to%20Develop%20and%20Maintain%20the%20Label%20Generation%20Rules%20for%20the%20Root%20Zone%20in%20Respect%20of%20IDNA%20Labels%20%E2%80%93%20Second%20Public%20Comment%20Draft%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The IDN Variant TLD Program has been exploring the issues associated with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone at the request of the ICANN Board and the community. The Label Generation Rules Procedure is a way to develop and maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in respect of IDNA labels. This procedure must be in place to enable the delegation and management of IDN Variant TLDs. The IDN Variant TLD Program follows on from the publication of the final Integrated Issues Report on 17 February 2012. The Program Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/idn-variant-tld-updated-plan-23aug12-…> [PDF, 576 KB] was published after two rounds of public comment. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) project team was formed to include expert consultants and a global team of volunteers. After discussions on-line and a two-day face-to-face session in Los Angeles in August, the project team created a first draft of the document on the "Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels". That draft was published for Public Comment, and the project team received community input on the LGR process and the principles that support it during September and October 2012. The team continued the refinement of the procedure document, and after a second two-day face-to-face session at the ICANN Toronto Meeting, two additional teleconferences, and daily e-mail discussion with the global team of volunteers, a new draft of the procedure document is now ready for the second and final round of Public Comment. Section II: Background On 20 April 2011, ICANN announced the IDN Variant Issues Project to explore the issues associated with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone. This project was initiated in response to a 2010 ICANN Board of Directors resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.5>. The project completed with the publication of the final Integrated Issues Report on 17 February 2012. The IDN Variant TLD Program follows on from that work. The Program consists of several projects, and continues as a multi-phase multi-year program. The Program Plan was published - after substantial public input and comment - on 23 August 2012. One of the first projects in the new program is to develop the Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process for the DNS Root Zone. The approach taken was to form a project team of expert consultants supported by a global group of volunteers representing multiple scripts and languages. The formation of the volunteer group was announced on 23 August 2012. The project team has had multiple discussions on-line and by telephone conference, and held two two-day face-to-face sessions. The project team has created a new draft document on the "Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels" for Public Comment, and now seeks community input and comment. Section III: Document and Resource Links Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels - Second Public Comment Draft<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/draft-lgr-procedure-07dec12-en.pdf> [PDF, 790 KB] Integrated Issues Report<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/idn-vip-integrated-issues-final-clean-20…> [PDF, 2.15 MB] Program Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/idn-variant-tld-updated-plan-23aug12-…> [PDF, 576 KB] Section IV: Additional Information None (*) 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0