March 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council motions 14 March 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry March 15, 2012

March 15, 2012

Dear All, The following resolutions were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 14 March 2012. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards Glen Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109) Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois; (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. Approval of a Charter for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Motion made by: Joy Liddicoat Motion seconded by: Carlos Dionisio Aguirre 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 Joy Liddicoat 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 - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/locking-domain-name-udrp-proceedings-charter-0… Motion to approve Cross Community Working Group Principles deferred from the Council meeting on 19 January 2012 Made by: Jonathan Robinson Seconded by: Jeff Neuman Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC); Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; Whereas, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups; Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf+.+ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups; Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Language on New Meeting Date
by Margie Milam March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

All- Per Zahid's request, here is the language from the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures on calling meetings: _______________________ 3.3 Notice of Meetings Advance notice of meetings shall be posted on the GNSO website, if reasonably practicable, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting for Administrative issues and 14 days in advance for Policy issues. Advance notice shall also be posted to other GNSO Council work spaces where practical. Best regards, Margie

1 0

ALAC Statement on IOC/Red Cross Issue
by Alan Greenberg March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

As approved a few minutes ago. ALAC STATEMENT ON THE RESERVATION OF OLYMPIC AND RED CROSS NAMES IN THE GTLD APPLICATION PROCEDURE: The ALAC notes with concern the recent activities of the ICANN Board, its staff, and the GNSO regarding the reservation of domain names related to the Olympic and Red Cross movements. We object to the poor precedents these activities set forward both on substance and on process: On substance, we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red Cross and the International Olympic Committee protections not available to other rights holders. Substantial objection procedures were put in place regarding the gTLD program, well capable of addressing all concerns about confusion and misuse. ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which has raised the concerns about these names, indeed has its own hard-won objection mechanisms in place. Moreover, there are many in the At-Large Community who believe specifically that specially entrenched protection of olympic-related names is against the global public interest. We note that many legitimate uses of the word "olympic" and its derivatives are used for airlines, cameras, restaurants, paint, and numerous businesses around the world with no connection to the Olympic athletic movement or the IOC. These businesses are not currently seen to be confusing with the olympic movement, and we believe that needless restriction on these names -- beyond what already exists -- is publicly harmful. On process, it is regrettable to see the domain naming policy (a hard-bargained consensus amongst many stakeholders) being overridden as a result of a bilateral engagement by the ICANN Board. We accept that the GAC, in advancing its concerns over these names, was performing its role according to its members' wishes. However, the ICANN Board's imposition of these wishes upon the community without prior consultation demonstrates numerous flaws and poor precedents: * It is our understanding that the scope given the GNSO Drafting Team, in debating this matter, precluded it from rejecting outright the proposed changes because the Board had already forced the matter. The Drafting Team was left in a position of refining -- and indeed legitimizing -- a Board directive that many community members thought to be objectionable outright; * The overriding of broad consensus-based policy based on a bilateral negotiation calls into question ICANN's publicly expressed commitment to maintaining (and indeed strengthening) its "multi-stakeholder model". How can ICANN's multi-stakeholder model claims be trusted when the community consensus can be so easily overridden due to perceived political expediency? * The late date of this activity, changing the Applicant Guidebook so long after its "final" version was published, reduces public confidence and destabilizes the application process * Why is this only about generic names? That is, why would "co.redcross" be subject to pre-restriction but "redcross.co" not? The uneven and unequal application of such a demand is the source of both instability and confusion. The debate on such policy should not be limited to the GNSO, since it is an issue affecting all domain names. We note many of our concerns about this process have been expressed in Kurt Pritz's March 2 letter to the GNSO Drafting Team. We believe, though, that rather than simply requesting further details and refinement, staff's concerns call into question the value of the entire initiative. In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public interest. This matter should be reviewed with the purpose of giving the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interest related to making changes to previously-approved multi-stakeholder consensus. ALAC further advises the ICANN Board to leave the Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard . As the body mandated by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around the world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of ICANN's multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial end-user benefit, but has the effect of creating new potential sources of public confusion and instability.

1 0

Adobe Connect Room for Council meeting
by Marika Konings March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

All, we'll also be using the Council Adobe Connect room for this meeting: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Seconding IOC RCRC motion
by Zahid Jamil March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

Happy to second the motion Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my iPad

1 0

GNSO Working Session transcripts posted
by Glen de Saint Géry March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

Dear All, Just to inform you that the transcripts of the GNSO working sessions over the weekend and the Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting are all posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mar Meeting transcripts that are not yet posted are being reviewed and will be posted shortly. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Final IOC / RCRC Motion
by Joy Liddicoat March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

Thanks Jeff. And well said, Chuck Joy From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2012 11:35 p.m. To: Neuman, Jeff; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Final IOC / RCRC Motion I want to personally compliment every member of the DT for their good faith, constructive and professional manner in trying to work toward recommendations that accommodate concerns for all parties as much as possible. This process has taken a lot of time over the last several weeks but I have enjoyed working with each one of you. Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:54 AM To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Final IOC / RCRC Motion All, Please find enclosed the final draft (and redline) of the motion for the Council meeting concerning the protection of IOC and RCRC Motions at the Top Level. I want to thank the drafting team, including members from virtually every constituency, stakeholder group, the ALAC, the IOC and RCRC for working so diligently through the week with the expectation that the Council would be voting on this motion. The GAC has been truly appreciative of the efforts of this group and of the council for handling this so expeditiously with an eye towards implementation in the current round. 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 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / <http://www.neustar.biz/> 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

Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Final IOC / RCRC Motion
by Thomas Rickert March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

I could not agree more! Thomas Am 14.03.2012 um 04:34 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: > I want to personally compliment every member of the DT for their good faith, constructive and professional manner in trying to work toward recommendations that accommodate concerns for all parties as much as possible. This process has taken a lot of time over the last several weeks but I have enjoyed working with each one of you. > > Chuck > > From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:54 AM > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Final IOC / RCRC Motion > > All, > > Please find enclosed the final draft (and redline) of the motion for the Council meeting concerning the protection of IOC and RCRC Motions at the Top Level. I want to thank the drafting team, including members from virtually every constituency, stakeholder group, the ALAC, the IOC and RCRC for working so diligently through the week with the expectation that the Council would be voting on this motion. The GAC has been truly appreciative of the efforts of this group and of the council for handling this so expeditiously with an eye towards implementation in the current round. > > 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 / 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

Proposed amendment to motion on Thick WHOIS
by Wendy Seltzer March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

Hi Stéphane and Yoav, I propose to amend the motion to make it clear that the consideration of 'thick' WHOIS for all gTLDs can also consider 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs. The staff report encourages broader discussion, and it would help to answer the nagging concern that thick WHOIS for new gTLDs has been implemented unilaterally in the Guide Book with no policy process. Below is the motion as taken from the wiki with two suggested additions. Would this be friendly? Thanks, --Wendy > Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ‘thick’ Whois > > deferred from the Council meeting on 16 February 2012 > Made by: Stéphane van Gelder > Seconded by: Yoav Keren > Amended by David Taylor (in bold > > Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109) > > Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) > > Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) > > Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. ADD: Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends "that further investigation of ‘thick’ Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as to whether ‘thick’ Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not." > > [Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means] > > THEREFORE BE IT: > Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois ADD: specifically directing consideration of 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs as well as 'thick'; > (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) > > Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. > > Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. ......................................................... -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0

Final IOC / RCRC Motion
by Neuman, Jeff March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

All, Please find enclosed the final draft (and redline) of the motion for the Council meeting concerning the protection of IOC and RCRC Motions at the Top Level. I want to thank the drafting team, including members from virtually every constituency, stakeholder group, the ALAC, the IOC and RCRC for working so diligently through the week with the expectation that the Council would be voting on this motion. The GAC has been truly appreciative of the efforts of this group and of the council for handling this so expeditiously with an eye towards implementation in the current round. 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