March 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Map of venue at Costa Rica
by Bruce Tonkin March 8, 2012

March 8, 2012

For those that like maps, see attached.

1 0

RE: [council] Motion to Recommend Certain Oritections for RCRC and IOC Names and the Top Level in New gTLDs
by Neuman, Jeff March 8, 2012

March 8, 2012

One correction....Alan Greenberg should be listed as "At-Large" as opposed to ALAC. I apologize for the mistake. So, the results should read: RySG - Yes (Gomes) IPC - Yes (Evans, Shatan) ISP - Yes (Novoa) BC - Yes (DelBianco) NCUC - No (Liddicoat, Komaitis, Dammak) NCA Appointes - Yes (Ajayi, Rickert) At-Large - Yes (Greenberg) Red Cross - Yes (Hughes, Hankins, Lanord) IOC - Yes (Bikoff, Malancharuvil, Heasley) 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. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 1:02 AM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Joy Liddicoat Cc: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: RE: [council] Motion to Recommend Certain Oritections for RCRC and IOC Names and the Top Level in New gTLDs All, Sorry for the delay in my response, but we just closed the most recent consensus call on the Drafting Team's recommendations before responding. Due to timing issues, I did have to present the motion to the council before the completion of the consensus call. It was not the optimal way to do this I confess, but in this situation we did the best we could with the compressed timelines. I was fairly comfortable based on the discussions of the group that we would have Consensus or Strong Support when I presented the motion and always intended to report that to the Council in Costa Rica this weekend. I believe the results indicate that we do have a Consensus of the Drafting Team that supports the substance of the Recommendations in the motion. Please note that "Consensus" does not mean unanimity and as there was one group that voted no. Therefore, we do not have Unanimous Consensus support. Although participants in the Drafting Team were participating as individuals, many of the individuals did consult with the respective groups in arriving at their decision. In considering whether there was consensus, since there were some constituencies/groups that had multiple members, I have grouped them together for fairness purposes. I did not want, for example, to weigh the opinions of those from the International Olympic Committee more heavily than the person representing the registries simply because the IOC had 3 representatives and the registries only 1 . The Breakdown was as follows: RySG - Yes (Gomes) IPC - Yes (Evans, Shatan) ISP - Yes (Novoa) BC - Yes (DelBianco) NCUC - No (Liddicoat, Komaitis, Dammak) NCA Appointes - Yes (Ajayi, Rickert) ALAC - Yes (Greenberg) Red Cross - Yes (Hughes, Hankins, Lanord) IOC - Yes (Bikoff, Malancharuvil, Heasley) **RrSG - The Registrars did not participate in any of the discussions, e-mail archives or consensus call as there were no registrar members on the Drafting Team. Note 1: The Drafting Team was only asked to agree or not agree with the substance of the recommendations and not on the process that will or wont be followed by the GNSO Council in voting on the recommendations. They were not asked, for example to opine on (i) whether the initial Board Resolution was the right one, (ii) whether we needed to provide more rationale on why to protect the IOC/RC names, (iii), whether there should or should not be additional comment periods, etc. That is the job of the Council to evaluate. The Drafting Team was asked only to respond to the substance of the GAC proposal and present its advice to the GNSO Council. Note 2: The NCUC members of the DT voted no to the recommendations for the following reasons: a) Ms. Liddicoat stated: "My reasons are because the recommendations are not the best option for implementing the Board decision as set out in the Applicant Guidebook, go further than matters of "implementation" and would secure extended protections beyond what is reasonable (including language protections in recommendation 2 which are outside the scope of the Board decision). Please note that despite not agreeing with some of the options under DT discussion (and the motion proposed) I have nonetheless worked in a spirit of cooperation to assist discussion of whether the options are workable" b) Mr. Komaitis stated: "On the recommendation itself (1), I believe there is simply not enough justification in going beyond the protection the Board has already included in the Applicant Guidebook and I am, in particularly, uneasy with the various obstacles that this recommendation creates for other legitimate rights owners (Greek communities, other trademark owners, etc.). On the issue of which languages protection should extend to, I believe that our point of reference should be the existing international legal instruments and that this group should not accept an arbitrary list compiling various national laws. Finally, I think that given the complexity and potential impact these recommendations may have, at a first instance these protections should not be extended to all future rounds and should be the subject of a review." c) Mr. Dammak stated his non-support was based on the same rationale as Mr. Komaitis and Ms. Liddicoat. Note 3: As the Chair of the Drafting Team, I did not participate in the Consensus call. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will be happy to address them this weekend. 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. From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 6:20 AM To: Joy Liddicoat; Neuman, Jeff Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Motion to Recommend Certain Oritections for RCRC and IOC Names and the Top Level in New gTLDs Thanks Joy. Jeff, the points Joy raises require some further explanations I think. Your motion is asking the Council to approve recommendations. Whenever the Council receives such a request, it is with the understanding that the DT has adopted the recommendations as formal. If this is not the case here, perhaps the DT has more work to do and this motion needed to be introduced now to beat the deadline and that is fine, but it does require some more info I think. Can you comment please? Stéphane Le 6 mars 2012 à 23:55, Joy Liddicoat a écrit : Dear Jeff , I appreciate you taking the initiative in relation to this motion, however, I would point out, as a member of the Drafting Team, that the Drafting Team has not yet agreed how it will report to the Council on its work (including the range of options that were considered) and neither have we agreed to propose these recommendations. I appreciate the urgency with this task and your work, but I feel strongly that this motion may be seen as pre-determining the outcome of our work and the public comment period. I just think Council should be aware of this before our meeting, which I am looking forward to Kind regards Joy From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 3:22 a.m. To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: [council] Motion to Recommend Certain Oritections for RCRC and IOC Names and the Top Level in New gTLDs All, In order to get this on the agenda by the deadline, here is a motion I have crafted on the adoption of the DT recommendations. The wording for Recommendation 2 will change over the week to reflect the fact that we have received the list from the IOC (and translations) and hopefully the Red Cross by the time we actually hold the vote. Other than that, the substance is the same. Happy to take comments on this. ************************************************************************************* MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD A SOLUTION TO PROTECT CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES AT THE TOP LEVEL IN NEW GTLDS Whereas, the Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution to modify the ICANN staff's implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 <LINK>; Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify a solution that addresses GAC concerns,; Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March 2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications, which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012; Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application period for the first round of new gTLD applications'. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's three recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of IOC and RCRC names at the top level as provided inhttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; namely: Recommendation 1: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "Modified Reserved Names," meaning: a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective components, as applicable. b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review: i. And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable. ii. If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by: 1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or 2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must: a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity. 3. A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination. 4. The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications. Recommendation 2: Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as Feasible The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be protected in multiple languages-all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet...The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive." Although the Drafting Team agrees with the notion that the lists provided by the IOC and RCRC were illustrative, protecting the terms in every language on the Internet is not a standard that the Drafting Team believes is feasible to achieve. While it is true that the list of languages can be expanded, we recognize that in order to perform a String Similarity Review (as recommended above), a definitive objective list of languages must be created. It is the Drafting Team's understanding that representatives from the IOC and RCRC are working on the creation of that definitive list and should be able to present that to the Drafting Team by no later than the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica. If such a list can be produced, the Drafting Team may recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that currently in the Applicant Guidebook. In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook. Recommendation 3: Protections should apply for all future rounds, but may be reviewed after the first round. In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds. Although, the Drafting Team has not spent a lot of time discussing this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is making this recommendation as one intended to apply in all future rounds, but also recognizes that like all other aspects of the new gTLD program, these protections may be reviewed by the ICANN community should it desire to do so. Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration and adoption at its 16 March 2012 meeting in Costa Rica as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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.

1 0

Motion to Recommend Certain Oritections for RCRC and IOC Names and the Top Level in New gTLDs
by Neuman, Jeff March 8, 2012

March 8, 2012

All, In order to get this on the agenda by the deadline, here is a motion I have crafted on the adoption of the DT recommendations. The wording for Recommendation 2 will change over the week to reflect the fact that we have received the list from the IOC (and translations) and hopefully the Red Cross by the time we actually hold the vote. Other than that, the substance is the same. Happy to take comments on this. ************************************************************************************* MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD A SOLUTION TO PROTECT CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES AT THE TOP LEVEL IN NEW GTLDS Whereas, the Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution to modify the ICANN staff's implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 <LINK>; Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify a solution that addresses GAC concerns,; Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March 2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications, which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012; Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application period for the first round of new gTLD applications'. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's three recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of IOC and RCRC names at the top level as provided in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; namely: Recommendation 1: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "Modified Reserved Names," meaning: a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective components, as applicable. b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review: i. And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable. ii. If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by: 1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or 2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must: a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity. 3. A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination. 4. The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications. Recommendation 2: Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as Feasible The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be protected in multiple languages-all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet...The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive." Although the Drafting Team agrees with the notion that the lists provided by the IOC and RCRC were illustrative, protecting the terms in every language on the Internet is not a standard that the Drafting Team believes is feasible to achieve. While it is true that the list of languages can be expanded, we recognize that in order to perform a String Similarity Review (as recommended above), a definitive objective list of languages must be created. It is the Drafting Team's understanding that representatives from the IOC and RCRC are working on the creation of that definitive list and should be able to present that to the Drafting Team by no later than the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica. If such a list can be produced, the Drafting Team may recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that currently in the Applicant Guidebook. In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook. Recommendation 3: Protections should apply for all future rounds, but may be reviewed after the first round. In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds. Although, the Drafting Team has not spent a lot of time discussing this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is making this recommendation as one intended to apply in all future rounds, but also recognizes that like all other aspects of the new gTLD program, these protections may be reviewed by the ICANN community should it desire to do so. Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration and adoption at its 16 March 2012 meeting in Costa Rica as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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.

3 4

TR: ATRT Update
by Glen de Saint Géry March 8, 2012

March 8, 2012

Dear ICANN Community members: In advance of the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica, I would like to call your attention to the progress that has been made on efforts to advance ICANN's accountability and transparency, specifically implementation of the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT) Recommendations. Status reports on ICANN's ATRT-related work are posted on ICANN's Accountability & Transparency web page<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability>. For your convenience, links to recent highlights are included below: * At a glance: ATRT Implementation Status<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/atrt-implementation-gl…> * ATRT Implementation Summary<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/atrt-project-list-work…> * WHOIS Community Review Team Seeks Public Comments<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05d…> * Action on ATRT Recommendations 15, 16, 17: Public Comment Processes<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> * Action on ATRT Recommendation 5: Board Compensation<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08dec11-en.htm#3> You are invited to share any input you may have about these activities at the public forum<http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29713> in Costa Rica. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need additional information. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel(a)icann.org<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org> PS Staff can be available to answer questions about ATRT implementation, or to provide a more in-depth briefing for their group in Costa Rica if needed. Just drop me an email if there is interest.

1 0

Final Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
by Margie Milam March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012

Dear All, I am pleased to deliver the Final Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments for your review and consideration. I look forward to seeing you all in Costa Rica, and will be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the attached Report. Best Regards, Margie ______ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ______

1 0

IOCRC
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012

Councillors, I want to bring to your attention the current situation in the IOCRC Drafting Team. On March 1, 2012, ICANN Staff sent a message to the IOCRC DT that is currently looking at ways to implement the June 20, 2011 Board resolution directing the GNSO Council to develop policy to permanently protect Olympic and Red Cross names at both the top and second level as part of the new gTLD program. The message contained suggestions "to assist the team in their work". Members of the DT, including its Chair Jeff Neuman, reacted strongly to the comments from Staff. From the DT's mailing list, it can be seen that there is worry on several issues. One major worry seems to be that in the context of a June 20, 2011 Board resolution that appeared to modify the GNSO PDP on new gTLDs with respect to the issue of Reserved Names, Staff suggest in their letter that the DT or the Council now should provide a rationale for why these names should be protected. This is what I have been told by the DT Chair: "The DT asked Staff to provide the rationale for the June 20, 2011 Board resolution from the outset, but Staff did not. In addition, there is no mention of the rationale behind the Board’s motion in the minutes from that meeting. Although there is some information about the IOC/RC issue in the Board Papers posted well after the meeting, the entire rationale for the motion is redacted as being privileged and confidential. The DT is surprised to see Staff now ask it to provide this rationale instead. Even more surprising is that fact that without any consultation of the GNSO community, ICANN staff chose to implement the ICANN Board resolution in a manner unlike any other “reserved name” in the Applicant Guidebook. The DT saw this as a flaw in the implementation of the resolution. When it tried to provide a recommendation on fixing that perceived flaw, ICANN staff asked for a detailed rationale along with a lengthy 42 day public comment period. The message sent by staff essentially is that no public consultation is necessary for ICANN staff’s unilateral discretion in implementation matters, but if anyone wants to change that implementation (even if flawed), that requires public consultation." I see one of my main duties as Chair of this Council to be to defend the community-driven, consensus-based, bottom-up policy process that is at the foundation of ICANN, and the policies the GNSO produces. The DT has expressed a clear worry that the original board motion coupled with the staff’s implementation of that message may be an instance where the policy process has been circumvented. I am not saying it has. But having been informed of this by the DT, I am taking that possibility seriously. As such, I have asked Kurt Pritz, who sent the message from Staff to the IOCRC DT, to provide detailed answers to the questions asked, not by me, but by the DT members themselves. No answers have been provided yet, but we should of course all be mindful that we are in the run-up to an ICANN meeting and everyone's schedules are pretty hectic right now. I am hopeful that answers will be provided soon. As a group, we are stewards of the PDP in general and minders of policies that this Council has adopted in the past. As such, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the situation. Stéphane

1 0

Motion for next Council meeting
by Joy Liddicoat March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012

Councillors, Please find below a motion I would like to submit at our next meeting. Kind regards Joy Liddicoat Approval of a Charter for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Whereas on 15 December 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112) Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team. RESOLVED, The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter [see attached pdf]

2 1

Fake Renewal Notices Report
by Marika Konings March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012

Dear All, On behalf of the Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team, please find attached its report for GNSO Council consideration. With best regards, Marika Sr. Policy Director ICANN

1 0

ICANN and Registrar Negotiation Team Post Summary of RAA Negotiations
by Glen de Saint Géry March 5, 2012

March 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-01mar12-en.htm 1 March 2012 In advance of the Costa Rica meeting, ICANN and the Registrar Negotiation Team have prepared a summary of the negotiations<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-negotiations-progress-…> [PDF, 117 KB] on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). After the Board directed ICANN and the Registrars<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> to proceed into negotiations regarding recommendations by law enforcement<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-law-enforcement-recomm…> [PDF, 111 KB] and recommendations from the GNSO, negotiations proceeded at a brisk pace, with 13 negotiation sessions held to date. There are many topics where ICANN and the Registrar Negotiation Team are close to agreement on language, and even more topics where there is agreement in principle. Because of the comprehensive nature of the amendments, it is expected that all negotiated language will be posted as a unified document after further negotiation. The summary chart<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-negotiations-progress-…> [PDF, 117 KB] released today provides information on nearly all of the items that have been raised in the negotiations, and the current status of agreement on those issues. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[BlackHELO] [ispcp] WG: [council] Re: Root Server System
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 5, 2012

March 5, 2012

FYI Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 5. März 2012 09:53 An: Rod Beckstrom Cc: Jeffrey A. Moss; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO Betreff: [council] Re: Root Server System Thanks Rod, I am copying the Council on this response so that anyone who has input or advice can provide it directly to Jeffrey. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 3 mars 2012 à 02:06, Rod Beckstrom a écrit : Dear Stephane, You may be aware that there has been a recent threat of a future attack against the root-server system purporting to originate from the group Anonymous. ICANN takes all threats against DNS infrastructure seriously, as is consistent with our technical coordination role, our role as operator of the L Root server, and ICANN's mission to maintain the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. We are tracking the threat and collaborating with others in the industry and greater community to ensure we are prepared. These efforts are being led by Jeff Moss, ICANN's Chief Security Officer. We are writing to ask you, in your role as Chair of the GNSO, if there is any advice or information that you or your members wish to share on this specific threat. If you have information concerning the threat, or if you have any questions, please contact Jeff Moss at jeffrey.moss(a)icann.org<mailto:jeffrey.moss@icann.org>. We will update you with relevant information as we receive it. Sincerely, Rod

1 0