December 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Document and motion Deadline Wednesday, 12 December 2012 for GNSO Council meeting 20 December at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Dec '12

08 Dec '12

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

Proposed Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 December 2012 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 06 Dec '12

06 Dec '12

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda below and posted on the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+20+December+… Please be aware that this agenda is subject to change, so please keep checking on the Wiki pages. Proposed Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 December 2012 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 15:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/bz42k3j Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 04:00 Wellington Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audio cast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4 Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 15 November 2012<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-15nov12-en.htm> were approved effective 29 November 2012. 1.5 GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (5 minutes) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes) Approval of the modified GNSO Operating Procedures which have been updated to reflect the changes recommended by the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI) to address the suspension of a Policy Development Process (PDP) Item 4: MOTION - Second Level Protections for certain International Olympic Committee/Red Cross Red Crescent (IOC / RCRC) names in the first round of New GTLDs (10 minutes) The IOC/RC Drafting Team has forwarded its recommendations i.e. that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the IOC/RC Drafting Team's recommendations http://tinyurl.com/atl39y4: providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names at the second level, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now asked to consider approval of the motion, and the next steps for informing the Board about the GNSO Council vote. Note: On 26 November 2012, the Board's New gTLD Program Committee adopted a resolution providing that "restrictions for registration of RCRC and IOC names for new gTLDs at the second level will be in place until such time as a policy is adopted that may require further action." Refer to motion 1 http://tinyurl.com/atl39y4: 4.1 Reading of the motion (Brian Winterfeldt). 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 4.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). Item 5: MOTION - Consumer Trust (10 minutes) The GNSO's Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition WG has worked on an Advice Letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf> for consideration by ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. Following withdrawal of the motion from the October Meeting, a revised Advice Letter has been prepared and the GNSO Council is now asked to consider and approve this revised Advice Letter. Refer to motion 2: http://tinyurl.com/atl39y4: 5.1 Reading of the motion (John Berard). 5.2 Discussion of motion and next steps. 5.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). Item 6: UPDATE - Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman Proposal and Defensive Registrations Discussion (20 Minutes) ICANN's CEO has requested GNSO Council input on the Strawman Proposal<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chehade-to-robinson-04dec12-en.pdf> recently developed through the TMCH related implementation discussions, that has been posted for public comment http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30nov12-en.htm . ICANN's CEO additionally requested Council input on the joint proposal from the Business Constituency/Intellectual Property Constituency (BC/IPC) for a "limited preventative registration mechanism" which is also currently available for public comment. Related to this discussion is the Staff briefing paper http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287 to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level, in response to a previous request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requested the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council is to discuss: (i) a response to the ICANN CEOs request, and (ii) to consider whether to undertake any additional work related to the BC/IPC proposal and/or the Staff briefing paper, on the topic of second level defensive registrations. 6.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next Steps Item 7: UPDATE - Response to the GAC Letter (15 minutes) The GAC has sent a letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-robinson-28nov12-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council with regard to the initiation of a PDP on the IGO/INGO issue, and specifically requesting a rationale for undertaking a PDP i.e. an explanation as to why GNSO believes this issue should be evaluated through a PDP rather than simply executed as an implementation process. This letter and recent activities related to work on the Trademark Clearinghouse, highlights a broader issue regarding the boundary between policy development and implementation work as well as the effective integration of policy development and integration work from the outset. This is a discussion item. 7.1 Update 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: UPDATE - ATRT2 Developments (5 minutes) The call for applicants to serve on the next Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) has been extended until 14 January 2013. (See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03dec12-en.htm ). An update on the process and next steps to provide GNSO Council endorsements of applicants will be provided. This is a discussion item. 8.1 Update (Wolfe-Ulrich Knoben) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9: UPDATE - Next Steps- WHOIS Board Resolution (10 minutes) On November 8, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm which directed the CEO to launch a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. The resolution also directed preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process. Staff will provide an overview of the Board's resolution and the next steps for the GNSO Council and the ICANN community. This is a discussion item. 9.1 Update 9.2 Discussion 9.3 Next steps Item 10: INFORMATION - GNSO Council Review and SIC Update (15 minutes) In Toronto, the Chair of the SIC provided an overview of a new framework for future independent review efforts at ICANN. The GNSO was used as a case study to describe the effort because it is the first Supporting Organization lined-up in the next review cycle. Staff will brief the Council on the set of criteria metrics for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and the work underway to develop metrics for the Council and the Working Group Model of policy. 10.1 Update from Staff (Rob Hogarth) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next Steps Item 11: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 11.1 Liaison to ccNSO - John Berard volunteered - approve Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 10:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 13:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 13:00 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 17:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 04:00 - next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/bz42k3j Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Next ICANN Board meeting - 20 Dec 2012
by Bruce Tonkin 06 Dec '12

06 Dec '12

Hello All, Just a note that the ICANN Board has set the date for its next meeting - 20 Dec 2012 (USA time). I will send out the agenda once it is available. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Motion in support of advice letter of the WG on Consumer Metrics
by john＠crediblecontext.com 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

1 0

Motion in support of advice letter of the WG on Consumer Metrics
by john＠crediblecontext.com 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

All, For your consideration, below is a motion in support of the work of the WG on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition. I am asking it be put on our agenda for our December 20, 2012 meeting. Note that the first time it was offered (then withdrawn for further work), it was seconded by Carlos. This motion needs a new second. Let me know who had such an urge. Cheers, Berard ____________________________________________ Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC) Made by: John Berard Seconded by: TBD 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 there commendations 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.

3 2

Final Consumer Metrics Advice: round two
by john＠crediblecontext.com 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

Ladies and Gentlemen: Recall that the initial review of the Consumer Metrics Advice led to a review of its approach. That second round of discussion has now taken place and as the GNSO Council liaison to the Consumer Metrics Working Group, it is my pleasure to forward for discussion at our next meeting a copy of the final advice letter (attached). As background, this effort is in response to the Affirmation of Commitments requirement for a post-new gTLD launch review of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. The ICANN Board resolved in December 2010 to request advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. That advice also can be found on the CTCCC Page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf. Thanks to all who participated, with a special "shout out" to Berry Cobb and Steve Delbianco. Look next for a motion to be considered at our next Council meeting. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388

1 0

FW: TMCH
by Jonathan Robinson 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

All, Please see below for a letter received from Fadi Chehade this morning. Clearly it potentially both adds items to our agenda and provides more content for some of our on-going topics / themes. Jonathan From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org] Sent: 04 December 2012 22:47 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Margie Milam; David Olive Subject: TMCH Dear Jonathan, As reported in my recent blog on the Trademark Clearinghouse (see: http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-me…), the recent implementation TMCH related discussions led to the development of a strawman model to address some of the proposed improvements requested by the BC/IPC. I am very pleased with the efforts shown by the participants in these discussions, as they reflect a willingness to explore improvements to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available in new GTLDs. I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of the next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman Proposal and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations. Each of these documents are posted for public comment (see:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm) to allow the ICANN community the opportunity to comment on these proposals. Specifically, policy guidance is sought on the portion that pertains to the expansion of the scope of the trademark claims, although comments on any aspect of the Strawman Model is welcome in the event the Council is interested in broadening its response. The specific proposal is that: Where there are domain labels that have been found to be the subject of previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of a UDRP or court proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these may be added to a Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be mapped to an existing record for which the trademark has already been verified by the Clearinghouse). Attempts to register these as domain names will generate the Claims notices as well as the notices to the rights holder. Not included in the Strawman Model is the IPC/BC proposal for a limited preventative registrations. In general, there was not support among non-IPC/BC participants for solutions to the issue of second level defensive registrations among the participants in the TMCH meetings. After hearing concerns regarding this issue, members of the IPC/BC provided a description of a preventative mechanism, the “Limited Preventative Registration,” which has also been published for public comment. As this issue is relevant to a request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2), I am seeking GNSO Council feedback on this IPC/BC proposal as well. It would be ideal if the GNSO Council could take up these issues at its December meeting. Finally, addressing some of the criticisms on the process used by Staff in convening these meetings, I hope that you can appreciate that Staff is not circumventing the GNSO processes. The Strawman Model and my blog posting always clarified that this request to the GNSO Council was coming. One of my goals as CEO is to enhance collaboration in the ICANN community as it tackles difficult issues. I truly believe that the development of strawman proposals on this and other issues can be a useful tool to inform policy and implementation discussions. I hope that you will consider this request in that light. We look forward to the Council’s reply to this request. Best Personal Regards, Fadi Chehade President and CEO ICANN

2 1

Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

Dear Councillors, For your information, the letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections has been published on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence and can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-robinson-28nov12-en.pdf Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2): Call for Volunteer ATRT Members:
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03dec12-en.htm EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2): Call for Volunteer ATRT Members: Representing ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations; and Serving as Independent Experts 3 December 2012 Deadline: 14 January 2013 - 23:59 UTC To ensure ICANN's oversight of the multi-stakeholder model remains transparent and accountable (and to improve its performance), ICANN organizes independent reviews of its accountability and transparency commitments no less frequently than every three years in accordance with section 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30…> (AoC), The first ATRT was launched in early 2010 and delivered its final report on 31 December 2010. For further information, refer to: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt> The reviews are performed by volunteer community members and include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. On 5 October 2012, ICANN invited interested individuals to apply for: * a position of Volunteer Review Team Member, representing a Supporting Organization (SO) or Advisory Committee (AC), or * a position of Independent Expert on the second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2); or * both positions while requesting that candidates specify their preference. Please read the Call for Applicants <https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/call-for-volunteers-05oct12-…> to find details on the application procedure, mission, timeline, mandate, desired skillset etc. The stated deadline of 5 December 2012 for applications is drawing to a close. In consideration of the low number of applications received to date (please refer to the repository at http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/2/applications<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/2/applications>), the deadline to apply for a position of volunteer Review Team Member representing an ICANN SO or AC, or for a position of independent expert on the ATRT 2 is now extended to 14 January 2013 - 23:59 UTC. The calendar is deferred as follows: * 28 January 2013 - SO/AC declarations of endorsed candidates * 15 February 2013 - Selection of the Team (composition of the Review Team will be determined jointly by the Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the ICANN Board) * Early March 2013 - kick-off meeting Please consider volunteering for this important work. Email your application to rtcandidatures(a)icann.org<mailto:rtcandidatures@icann.org> by 14 January 2013 - 23:59 UTC. Please refer to the Call for Applicants<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/call-for-volunteers-05oct12-…> for further information on the application procedure. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Consultation on the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process
by Glen de Saint Géry 03 Dec '12

03 Dec '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27nov12-en.htm Consultation on the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 27 November 2012 Comment Close: 18 December 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27nov12-en.htm> Reply Open: 19 December 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:iana-complaint-resolution@icann.org> Reply Close: 9 January 2013 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/iana-complaint-resolution/> 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 Purpose (Brief): A consultation on establishing and implementing a Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process for the 2012 IANA functions contract Current Status: Initial public consultation Next Steps: Review comments received Staff Contact: Leo Vegoda Email: leo.vegoda(a)icann.org<mailto:leo.vegoda@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20%20Consultation%20on%20the%20IANA%20Customer%20Service%20Complaint%20Resolution%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.2.9.2.g The Contractor shall work with NTIA and collaborate with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3 to establish and implement within six (6) months after date of contract award a process for IANA function customers to submit complaints for timely resolution that follows industry best practice and includes a reasonable timeframe for resolution. Section II: Background This is one of a series of consultations to establish performance standards 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 Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/complaint-resolution-26nov12-…> [PDF, 650 KB] * Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 and related documents<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> * IANA-Related Issue Escalation Procedure<http://www.iana.org/escalation/> 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