February 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

REMINDER: Public comments close on 13 February:IRTP Part B PDP - Rec 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Name
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process - Recommendation 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Name Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 23 January 2012 Comment Close: 13 February 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23jan12-en.htm> Reply Open: 14 February 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:irtp-b-rec9-part2@icann.org> Reply Close: 6 March 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-rec9-part2/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Board Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes * ICANN Board/Bylaws * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): Public notice is hereby provided of the proposed change to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) to address the locking and unlocking of domain names that is considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policy change, prior to ICANN Board consideration. Current Status: Following adoption by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council of IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, part 2, a public comment forum is now opened as required by the ICANN Bylaws prior to ICANN Board consideration. Next Steps: Following the closing of the public comment period, the ICANN Board will consider the comments received in conjunction with its consideration of the proposed change to the IRTP. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: Policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Inter-Registrar%20Transfer%20Policy%20Part%20B%20Policy%20Development%20Process%20-%20Recommendation%209,%20Part%202%20Concerning%20a%20New%20Provision%20to%20Lock%20and%20Unlock%20Domain%20Names%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B presented its recommendations to the GNSO Council last year. For one of those recommendation, #9 part 2 ("denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked concerning a new provision to lock and unlock domain names"), the GNSO Council requested ICANN staff to provide a proposal. In consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group, ICANN Staff prepared a proposal that, together with the IRTP Part B recommendation, has now been approved by the GNSO Council. The ICANN Staff proposal, taking into account the deletion of denial reason #7 as previously approved by the ICANN Board, proposes to expand the existing section 5 (EPP - based Registry Requirements for Registrars) of the IRTP to address "Registrar Lock Status". The proposed modifications to the IRTP can be found in redline form in the ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf> [PDF, 490 KB]. The main elements of the proposed modifications are: * Registrar may only impose a lock that would prohibit transfer of the domain name if it includes in its registration agreement the terms and conditions for imposing such lock and obtains express consent from the Registered Name Holder: and * Registrar must remove the "Registrar Lock" status within five (5) calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request, if the Registrar does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to remove the "Registrar Lock" status You are invited to submit comments until 13 February 2011 before final consideration by the ICANN Board. Section II: Background The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. The IRTP Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) was the second in a series of five PDPs that address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The GNSO IRTP Part B Policy Development Process Working Group was tasked to address five issues focusing on issues related to domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and "lock status". The WG delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 31 May 2011. The GNSO Council acted on a number of the recommendations at its meeting on 22 June 2011. In relation to recommendation #9, part 2, a proposal from staff was requested. Following consultations with the IRTP Part B Working Group and a public comment forum on the Staff Proposal<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov11-en.htm>, GNSO Council approved IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, part 2 and the staff proposal at its meeting on 19 January 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201201). As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the policy that is considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policy, prior to consideration by the ICANN Board of these recommendations. Section III: Document and Resource Links * ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf> [PDF, 490 KB] * GNSO Council Resolution on the adoption of IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201201> * GNSO Council Resolution on the adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106> * IRTP Part B Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 972 KB] * IRTP Part B PDP Proposed Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-proposed-final-report-21feb11…> [PDF, 734 KB] * IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-initial-report-29may10-en.pdf> [PDF, 765 KB] * IRTP Part B Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-report-b-15may09.pdf> [PDF, 260 KB] * Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)<http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/> 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Reaffirms Commitment to Second Round in New gTLD Program, Seeks Public Comment on Trademark Protections, Moves Forward on Applicant Support Program
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09feb12-en.htm ICANN Reaffirms Commitment to Second Round in New gTLD Program, Seeks Public Comment on Trademark Protections, and Moves Forward on Applicant Support Program 9 February 2012 On 7 February 2012, the ICANN Board reaffirmed ICANN's commitment to opening a second round of applications in the New gTLD Program as expeditiously as possible. ICANN will publish a document describing the work plan required prior to initiating a second application window for the New gTLD Program. It is not possible yet to state a specific date for the second round because of the work ICANN has committed to related to the first round. First, the applications from the first round must be processed, and the amount of applications to be received will not be known until the first-round application window ends. In addition, ICANN previously committed to addressing the recommendations of the Governmental Advisory Committee requirements for assessment of trademark protections and root zone operation as a result of the first round. In furtherance of the resolution, after the publication of the description of the work plan, ICANN will continue working with the community to refine that work plan. The full text of the resolution is available on ICANN's website at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07feb12-en.htm In addition, ICANN is seeking public comment on certain trademark protections<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/newgtlds-defensive-applications-06fe…> in the New gTLD Program. Some stakeholders recently indicated that there are concerns about the perceived need for "defensive" applications at the top level, and encouraged ICANN to ensure that the program was launched in a manner that protects intellectual property rights. The public comment will help ICANN clarify the scope and benefits of the available protections as well as understand and respond to specific concerns with them. Finally, ICANN continues to push forward with its program to provide financial and other forms of assistance to qualifying applicants. Having designed an Applicant Support Program<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support> and an Applicant Assistance Handbook<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support#financial-assista…>, ICANN is now seeking independent panel members<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-03feb12-en.htm> to help make financial award decisions. Global diversity and broad sets of experiences will be required and ICANN encourages those interested to seek additional information. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00.
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2012 at 15:00. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen …………………………………………………………………………………… Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 16 February 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-16feb12-en.htm Wiki agenda : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+February+… Motions before Council https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February… This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-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 Time 15:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meeti…> Coordinated Universal Time: 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo; 17 February 2012 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 audiocast 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: · 19 January 2012 GNSO Council minutes –approved on 16 February 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12612.html 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf · Review main changes. · Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. • Approval of the Recommendations Report on IRTP B Rec 9 part 2 that Staff is proposing be sent to the Board. Refer to the Recommendations Report: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-report-irtp-part-b-recommendation… • Approval of the proposal to end the work on Whois access at this time. • Approval of the termination of the Open Council DT. • Approval of new calls for volunteers for the JIG. Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes) As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm). Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report,<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP. 3.1 Presentation of Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February… 3.2 Reading of the motion (Stéphane Van Gelder) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: IRTP B Rec 8 (15 minutes) As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status". Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html A motion was presented at the Jan 19, 2012 meeting, but was withdrawn to give Staff and Council more time to fine tune. A new motion is presented today. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Yoav Keren). 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: JIG letter to the Board (10 minutes) The ccNSO has not approved the joint letter the GNSO suggested sending to the Board on the JIG. As a way forward, the ccNSO is proposing two options: 1. Sending their proposed letter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February… as a joint letter to the Board. 2. If the GNSO does not approve option 1, the ccNSO will send a letter on its own. In that case, the GNSO must decide on what it wants to do, as we had approved sending a joint letter before http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112 5.1 Update by staff (X Y) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: Costa Rica Weekend agenda (20 minutes) At the Jan 19 Council meeting, it was suggested that our weekend sessions need to be focussed more on preparation work for the Council's week and less on updates. This is a discussion item on the proposed agenda. 6.1 Update and presentation of agenda (Wolf Ulrich Knoben) 6.2 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting with the Board 6.3 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting with the GAC 6.4 Agenda for GNSO Council lunch with the ccNSO 6.5 Discussion Item 7: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names (20 minutes) A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names under the new gTLD program. This agenda item is to provide the Council with an update on that work. 7.1 Update by staff (X Y) 7.2 Discussion Item 8: GNSO liaison to the ccNSO (5 minutes) Olga Cavalli had served as GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO, but has now left the GNSO Council. Therefore the GNSO Council must now appoint a new liaison to the ccNSO. 8.1 Call for volunteers 8.2 Discussion Item 9: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. 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; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. 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 with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. 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 & 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 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 13:00 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 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Paris, France (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, China (CST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/cst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 00:00 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 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Board resolutions from ICANN Board meeting on 7 Feb 2012
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

Hello All, From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07feb12-en.htm 1. Consent Agenda 1.1. Approval of Minutes of 8 December 2011 ICANN Special Board Meeting 1.2. Redelegation of the .BY domain representing Belarus to Reliable Software Inc. 2. Delegation of the .қаз ("kaz") domain representing Kazakhstan in Cyrillic 3. Public Comment Posting: Further Bylaws Changes for Revised GNSO PDP 4. Reaffirmation of second round of applications in New gTLD Program [BT note: I was not present for the discussion or voting on item 4] 1. Consent Agenda Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are approved: 1.1. Approval of Minutes of 8 December 2011 ICANN Special Board Meeting ======================================================================= Resolved (2012.02.07.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 8 December ICANN Regular Board Meeting. 1.2. Re-delegation of the .BY domain representing Belarus to Reliable Software Inc. ================================================================================== Whereas, BY is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Belarus; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for the redelegation of .BY to Reliable Software Inc.; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. Resolved (2012.02.07.02), the proposed redelegation of the .BY domain to Reliable Software Inc. is approved. 2. Delegation of the .қаз ("kaz") domain representing Kazakhstan in Cyrillic =========================================================================== Whereas, .қаз ("kaz"), encoded as "xn--80ao21a" is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Kazakhstan through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .қаз to the Association of IT companies of Kazakhstan. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. Resolved (2012.02.07.03), the proposed delegation of the .қаз domain to the Association of IT companies of Kazakhstan is approved. 3. Public Comment Posting: Further Bylaws Changes for Revised PDP ================================================================= Whereas, on 27 September 2011, the GNSO Council adopted the Updated Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf [PDF, 1.51 MB]) of the Policy Development Process Working Team (PDP-WT), setting out a proposed new Annex A to the ICANN Bylaws and a Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual, in fulfilment of a directive to develop a new PDP that is more effective and responsive to the GNSO's needs. Whereas, the Board adopted the new Annex A on 8 December 2011 and directed transition to the new PDP. Whereas, additional Bylaws revisions are necessary to fully implement the new PDP, including definition of new voting thresholds set out in the PDP-WT Updated Final Report. Resolved (2012.02.07.04). the ICANN Board approves the posting for public comment of further revisions to the ICANN Bylaws as necessary for the implementation of the new PDP 4. Reaffirmation of second round of applications in New gTLD Program ==================================================================== *** Prior to the consideration of this item, Board members and liaisons that have been identified as having a potential conflict of interest related to the New gTLD Program were excused from the meeting. **** Whereas, the first application window for the New gTLD Program opened on 12 January 2012 and will close on 12 April 2012. Whereas, the GNSO policy recommendations accepted by the Board on 26 June 2008 stated that ICANN should introduce new gTLDs in rounds. Whereas, in the process of forming the New gTLD Program, ICANN has committed to undertake certain work prior to initiating a second round of an application window for the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2012.02.07.05), ICANN is committed to opening a second application window for the New gTLD Program as expeditiously as possible. Resolved (2012.02.07.06), the Board directs the CEO to publish a document describing the work plan required prior to initiating a second application window for the New gTLD Program, specifically addressing the GAC requirement for assessment of trademark protections and root zone operation, and identifying other prerequisites to the next round of new gTLDs. Resolved(2012.02.07.07), the Board directs the CEO to continue working with the ICANN community to refine the work plan and address the prerequisites needed to open the second round of new gTLDs.

1 0

Re: GNSO members at JIG
by Stéphane Van Gelder 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

Thanks Edmon. I am copying the Council for their information. Glen, can I ask that you contact each of the existing members directly and ask them on my behalf if they would like to remain as GNSO reps to the JIG? Thanks, Stéphane Le 9 févr. 2012 à 02:44, Edmon Chung a écrit : > Hi Stéphane, > > As part of the efforts to reinvigorate the participation at the JIG, would like to refresh the 5 official members from the GNSO (based on the joint charter, the JIG is formed by 10 official members, 5 from the GNSO and 5 from the ccNSO along with other observers) and also call for more volunteers to join the discussion. > > Currently the 5 official members listed from the GNSO are: > Edmon Chung > Rafik Dammak > Terry Davis > Karen Anne Hayne > June Seo > > We are especially hoping to get more participation with the ongoing work on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs. This is an issue that affects all new gTLDs as well with particular concern for IDN TLDs, which also makes it an issue of common interest with the ccNSO (with the introduction of IDN ccTLDs). In brief, it is the issue of technical barriers faced by new gTLDs, e.g. where some software filters do not recognize new TLDs, databases e.g. facebook profiles not accepting URLs and emails with non legacy TLDs, etc. > > Perhaps another round of call for volunteers as well as a refresh of the 5 official members would be useful. I can say that I am happy to continue to remain on the group and Rafik has also been participating actively. Wondering if Terry, Karen and June would like to continue to serve or others may be interested to join. > > Much thanks for the attention. > > Edmon > >

2 1

Fwd: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions
by Stéphane Van Gelder 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

Councillors, FYI, please see the email chain below, showing you my comments to the ALAC Chair, Olivier's response and info from the ccNSO Chair on a session they are organizing that will be open to all. Missing from this is confirmation from the ALAC Chair that he will not push this idea further at this time. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk> > Objet : Rép : [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions > Date : 8 février 2012 19:52:47 HNEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Cc : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > > Given Stéphane's latter comment, perhaps I should re-mention cNSO has > scheduled a session on this at 4.00pm on the Tuesday afternoon, and it is > open to all. Sharing developments within ccTLDs is within the ccNSO > purview :o) > > Planned topics and speakers are currently as follows: > SOPA & ACTA overview Becky Burr, ccNSO Council Member > Internet Government Control in Latin America, Alejandro Pisanty and > Oscar Robles ( .MX) > HADOPI 2 and other French legislation initiatives Mathieu Weill, .fr > China, Law Enforcement and DNS Filtering Hong Xue, ccNSO Council Member > Internet government control in South Korea .kr (speaker TBC) > > Kind regards, > > Lesley > > Lesley Cowley, OBE > CEO > Nominet > Minerva House > Edmund Halley Road > Oxford Science Park > Oxford, OX4 4DQ > UK > > Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 > http://www.nominet.org.uk/ > > > > > > On 08/02/2012 17:35, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > wrote: > >> >> Thanks Olivier. If a session is to be held, I'd recommend an open >> session, as part of the main agenda. >> >> But I would like to add that I don't think this is part of ICANN's >> mandate and that some may disagree with the use of ICANN funds (anything >> that happens during an ICANN meeting week has to be paid for out of the >> meeting budget) to hold a general discussion on such a topic, rather than >> a session on something that is strictly within ICANN's purview. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> >> Le 8 févr. 2012 à 11:02, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : >> >>> >>> Dear Stéphane, >>> >>> thank you for your kind message. >>> >>> My train of thought goes as follows: >>> >>> 1. Find out if there is interest about the subject of SOPA and if yes, >>> 2. Ask staff to find out of there might be between 1 and 1.5 hours free >>> in the San José schedule for an ICANN-run session cross SO/AC (including >>> avoiding time conflicts for all participants) and if yes, >>> 3. Ask whether anyone wishes to take the lead in setting an agenda for >>> this proposed session. >>> >>> Only if all 3 are yes, do I propose that we have a cross SO/AC session >>> discussing SOPA and its impact on ICANN's operations and >>> multi-stakeholder, bottom-up policy development process. >>> >>> I believe we've had a "yes" to (1) so I now kindly ask staff to perform >>> (2), please. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Olivier >>> >>> On 08/02/2012 10:27, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote : >>>> Olivier, >>>> >>>> What is your intent here? For ALAC to organize a session and ask >>>> others in the community to join? Or to ask ICANN to organize a session >>>> and invite all? Or something else I have missed? >>>> >>>> I'm asking the question because I'm not sure what it is you are >>>> looking for. If the idea is just to hold a workshop on SOPA, then I >>>> don't think much consultation is needed. If you are asking for our >>>> input as leaders of the various ICANN communities, then what kind of >>>> input are you looking for? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Stéphane Van Gelder >>>> Directeur Général / General manager >>>> INDOM Group NBT France >>>> ---------------- >>>> Head of Domain Operations >>>> Group NBT >>>> >>>> Le 1 févr. 2012 à 08:27, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs, >>>>> >>>>> a recent discussion on an ALAC call led to the question whether the >>>>> ICANN community might be interested in holding a session in San José, >>>>> to >>>>> discuss the aspects of the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and how it >>>>> might affect ICANN policies that were reached through consensus. >>>>> >>>>> I am writing to you all to find out of this is something which your >>>>> community might be interested in. >>>>> As we are currently finalising schedules, it would be helpful to find >>>>> out your community's views ASAP. >>>>> >>>>> Warmest regards, >>>>> >>>>> Olivier >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>> >>> >> >> > >

2 1

Re: [council] Draft Agenda GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2012 at 15:00
by Stéphane Van Gelder 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

Thanks Jonathan. Glen, please take the CCWG item out of the agenda, along with the motion. We will defer until the next meeting. If anyone objects to this, please make your objection known promptly. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 8 févr. 2012 à 11:01, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > Hi Stéphane, > > A few thoughts / points. > > 1. We worked hard to bring the WG’s work to the council early this year and it is unfortunate that a short term shift in my schedule meant that I was not there to present our work at the last council meeting. > 2. That said, this seems to be an important area of work which has broad interest in it. Therefore it is both urgent to keep it moving but also important that it gets the maximum engagement. > 3. I checked the transcript and noted that the primary point discussed at the most recent past GNSO Council Meeting was in and around the single charter / multiple charter issue. This was a point we grappled with in the working group. On balance we decided to present a view that a single charter was required. But, this was not the result of a unanimous view so it is not surprising that it received further discussion. > 4. When the schedule was proposed for the meetings this year, I made it clear that I would not be able to make the forthcoming council meeting and that remains the case. I cannot attend the meeting next week. > > Taking Bill’s suggestion into account as well as all of the above, it seems sensible if not necessary to defer further discussion and the motion until Costa Rica. > > However, I’d like to take this opportunity emphasise my sense of both the urgency and importance of moving this out beyond the GNSO and fully engaging the broader community on the topic in order to aim to achieve wider, deeper consensus on the issues involved as soon as possible., > > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: 08 February 2012 09:06 > To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com > Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2012 at 15:00 > > Jonathan, as leader of this team, would you see a problem with Bill's request? > > One alternate solution could be to start the discussion at this meeting with a view to completing it in CR. However, there is a motion on the table here so we may also feel we'd like to try and not delay this any more… > > Stéphane > > > > Le 8 févr. 2012 à 09:13, William Drake a écrit : > > > Hi > > Thanks Glen. One point: > > Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes) > > As with outreach, NCSG would prefer to defer this to a F2F in San Jose so that we could probe a little deeper together and benefit from hearing the views of any affected parties in the room before voting on how we might best interface with them. I recognize that'd be a double deferral but we've already done the same with outreach, and Wolf-Ulrich had included it on the tentative SJ schedule he circulated a few weeks back. Would there be a problem doing this? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6866 (20120207) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com

1 0

Re: [gnso-chairs] AW: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions
by Stéphane Van Gelder 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

Councillors, Please find below an email chain starting with a message from the ALAC Chair. Thanks to Wolf for keeping me honest and reminding me that I had forgotten to copy the Council here ;) Stéphane Le 7 févr. 2012 à 16:06, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> a écrit : > Stéphane, > > are you going to inform the council about Olivier's request? > > Kind regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Februar 2012 11:01 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Cc: Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; gnso-chairs(a)icann.org > Betreff: Re: [gnso-chairs] AW: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions > > I agree with Jeff 100% > > Stéphane > > > > Le 2 févr. 2012 à 22:27, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> a écrit : > >> >> Jeff, I personally agree - with the knowledge I have so far. >> >> Nevertheless I expect different views from councillors. And I think the GNSO should be prepared just in case such a forum is going to be organized in Costa Rica. >> >> The ccNSO chair has answered to Olivier's request in favour. I think the GNSO chair should send an answer, too, based on GNSO discussions. >> >> Kind regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 22:11 >> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-chairs(a)icann.org >> Betreff: RE: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions >> >> I have been keeping quiet about this on other lists, but no I do not believe this is an issue for the GNSO Council to discuss. This is a matter that effects national law and would represent a complete side track during the weekend from official GNSO business. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >> >> >> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de >> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:06 PM >> To: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org >> Subject: [gnso-chairs] WG: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions >> >> >> >> I wonder whether the GNSO could refrain from such a forum in San José. Is SOPA (and PIPA) effecting our policy work or not? I think a GNSO representative should participate in such a discussion. >> Should we put this on the GNSO weekend agenda in San José, too? >> Maybe there is interest in discussing the item with the GAC ?! >> >> >> Kind regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2012 08:27 >> An: soac-discussion(a)icann.org >> Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff >> Betreff: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions >> >> >> Dear SO/AC Chairs, >> >> a recent discussion on an ALAC call led to the question whether the ICANN community might be interested in holding a session in San José, to discuss the aspects of the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and how it might affect ICANN policies that were reached through consensus. >> >> I am writing to you all to find out of this is something which your community might be interested in. >> As we are currently finalising schedules, it would be helpful to find out your community's views ASAP. >> >> Warmest regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> >> >

5 5

ICANN Seeks Volunteers
by Glen de Saint Géry 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

February 7, 2012 Volunteers Sought to Help Evaluate Generic Top-Level Domain Applicants Seeking Financial Support New Panel Will Help Expand Internet's Reach http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-03feb12-en.htm<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-03feb12-en.htm> Marina del Rey, California... The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is seeking volunteers who will assist in the evaluation of those organizations seeking financial support to apply for a new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD). "These volunteers will be key to ICANN's effort to assure that the less-developed parts of the world are able to participate in the new Domain name program," said Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President. "The panel members will make a real impact in ensuring that the opportunities for innovation and economic development created by the Internet are open to everyone." The volunteers will be chosen for their background and experience in areas such as running a small business, operating in developing economies, analyzing business plans, serving in the public interest, managing a domain name registry service, or awarding grants. The financial assistance component of the Applicant Support Program offers a limited number of qualifying applicants the opportunity to pay a reduced evaluation fee of $47,000 instead of the full evaluation fee of $185,000. The selected volunteers will assist in the evaluation of financial support applicants in the context of established public interest, financial capabilities and financial need criteria as outlined in the "Financial Assistance Handbook<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/financial-assista…>." Those who are interested in applying, should review the criteria, time commitment and other expectations, which are detailed here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/sarp-eoi-request-… ### * To learn more about the Applicant Support Program, go here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support. * To read the New gTLD Financial Assistance Handbook, go here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/financial-assista… * To learn more about the New gTLD program, go here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/program/materials Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motion for the next meeting
by Yoav Keren 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

Dear all, I would like to submit the following motion for our next meetingL Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions: a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm); b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ‘ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation’; WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm); WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html ); WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12580.html ); WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff updated proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12580.html ). Yoav Keren CEO Domain The Net Technologies Ltd. 81 Sokolov st. Tel: +972-3-7600500 Ramat Hasharon Fax: +972-3-7600505 Israel 47238 [תיאור: C:\Users\yoav\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Signatures\DTNT.jpg] ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************

2 1